


2853724! 


is 


SiSsStere es 


WANE ha SPAREN? 


rea 
i 


4 





Breas ze 


Fe ee 
zi RS 





“te 
nase 
4 
“tf, 
Aaa 
Sie, 
a 
Yeas 


14923 
hy ¥. 
aiff 


ve 54> 

os ffizs3 

sega? 
aft 


erg yiREE 
yh 


i 


oe - “ 
’ ely 


eS senammerne yy, 


ese 
is 
3 


Hf 
i 


si] 


eal 


OES 
Bareee 
a 
r4; 


o: Se es, , 
Hise Fe Eety 
4 62554. 
PISaNis2 


if 


2 


Mh 


SGUAS 
CANA TAG TTEINT Sg OTA 


LEN TADA Se Te Ss 
BPE STS: 


lad 
Mt: 


pe eR SPE ae Paces hey 


eee Lege SO tae, eee 
pot wa ove sine os 








wean 
os 

pone 
ome 





[vcr 
wid 








aS 
Ae Sho 

BA gd aeleg 
dees 





A owene ys 


dS end 





<i sentgttA\ @ gueursorncy ® 





OS 


Se evant 








< 
_ 
* * 
os IT tea ay Ne 
MND Pomp) Sr emenent mma aera 
+ Rien me SOBs ony eee hind cee 
Seren conenieh fe Swann tae Inn es 
boar pultehdciteearewted 
eA oa enn TS AON ae aoe nee 
ehinahatoot) ‘ bad, 
Parse 
i‘: ie 
ne Se wee 
ee — 
om \ ‘=n 
OF. ts = 
aad = 
Pe 


TELE PITTS SiPs oT StH Pie 


eee PTs ¥ 


Serer 
agiize 


at 











Y Pe. a Ma + > tue * one oe hd 
‘ rein toes; CP Adan A, 
wot} ae spon ESE OPO ILI OTT EOS RI ET TH HN Se = Sree 
Ps a 1 Tair = AIM we 
EPG TENTS ES LORE E TIP SR ese or eee gas IPE POLE TN LI OIL EIDE FL COIR S FS il pn 
SAAN sieing gg VIM cd ftemne feats Ge, vty : Serrsuitcen thet es pimaeng eee 
. fortad 7 78.) ay fm tet by Fs iy TL adl Fetes ¢ 





paresear tain 
; 


iS eposde 
: pussf{asegs 


3 u . 
ee Seri. | 











| 

AN o " | 
aye> iy, | 
fe 


PRINCETON, N. J. 


gt the Gheologicas S, 


6/12/78. breed ee ok 


Bvace2s 267.2 | 
Turner, Samuel Hulbeart, | 


1790-1861. 
Loe Essay on Our Lord's 
ae discourse at Capernaum | 
: 


———_— —-~ —-—- 





Ee 











Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2009 


https://archive.org/details/essayonourlordsd0Oturn 


[o,f 


DISCOURSE AT CAPERNAUM, 


RECORDED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF ST. JOHN. 


WITH 


STRICTURES ON CARDINAL WISEMAN’S LECTURES ON THE REAL 
PRESENCE, AND NOTICES OF SOME OF HIS ERRORS, 
BOTH OF FACT AND REASONING. 


RY SAMUEL H. TURNER, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LEARNING AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE 
IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE PROTESTANT 
EPISCOPAL CHURCH; AND OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE 
AND LITERATURE IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE, 

NEW YORK. 


Ohird dition. 


NEW-YORK: 


ANSON PD. F. RANDOLPH, 683 BROADWAY. 
1860. 


Entered, according to Act ot ‘ongress, in the year 1845, by 
Harper & SROTHERS, 
In the Clerk’s Office of the Southern District of New-York 


THE REV. BIRD WILSON, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC DIVINITY IN THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH ; 


THE BENEFIT OF WHOSE EXTENSIVE LEARNING AND SOUND 
JUDGMENT, CONSTANTLY SHOWN IN HIS VALUABLE INSTRUC- 
TIONS, THE INSTITUTION HAS LONG ENJOYED; AND 
WHOSE UNIFORM KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP WILL 
ALWAYS BE GRATEFULLY REMEMBERED BY 
THE WRITER; 


THIS ESSAY, 


IN THE HOPE THAT THE GENERAL VIEW TAKEN OF THE SUBJECT 
WILL MEET WITH HIS APPROVAL, 


IS MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED, 


BY 


HIB AFFECTIONATE FRIEND AND BROTHER, 


THE AUTHOR. 














ebook rf aii “% et he 


BO ax Yom Tan de sa ; 
ie hea = ris 
vines, Barents tx irae 2 nati. ai hob Hy +s id 









atect 


| ness Hae 
io) at «+ ie ¥ 
ees Ba EIN nye 
;  aprpeddeds os!t 80. QieTy 
he rae > ‘2 a eae 
ro m Gane A hee ) 
aap een 






























c re j re 
ay <b “eaaont i. agate Foote cietatut GPA: oder 5 Se 
cor: ce) ce vik Hass aah Ee Se vee ¢: a oe. 
ry Soa : aeOwy ot, user OT] hea datas AT Ca ae ar 
i rm sborpat3 ox at i ehlginande Ages, eaiionk M6 one 


i + = Pre 4 s y scpypeke 5 . tear ; 
a ae ane ee ‘ei FLT Mey i ot Wp aa ae ee. 
Ba Ae OR US © andieeceniner sad pom ab ered o 
. oo ae on ee a fea 
Be ab pst pticataald oe neta iplteaieninae 6108 


Bri aa soustigai ta." oprtinse Lyra eee wi to Meaigg: €. : 
> : a ae 


t va 





4 = ebtgoad iuiw.. =a daiidsie os Eons phat egw set 
ae gH bas Bi ayitest Sinmn * a uick 
ooh adi: tates Tihany had ot io 
- it ] 5 5 Ee . 
‘ » . 2 tog ‘ ‘ é 
if re nis pearl 
ae a a ee ee 





PREFACE, 


As the publication of an Essay on our Lord’s 
discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John 
may seem to be unnecessary, I think proper to 
state to the reader some of the reasons which led 
me to prepare the following treatise. 

In lecturing on this Gospel to the theological 
students under my care, my attention was di- 
rected, more than a year ago, by one of them to 
the Lectures on the Real Presence by Nicuonas 
Wiseman, D.D., the first four professing to prove 
that doctrine, as it is maintained by the Church of 
Rome, by an appeal to this chapter. These Lec- 
tures, as the preface informs us, were “ several 
times delivered in the English College at Rome, 
as a portion of the theological course” of instruc- 
tion there given. On returning to England, the 
author was induced to publish them, with the in- 
tention of doing “ ample justice to the line of argu- 
ment which he had pursued in” certain other lec- 
tures, and in order “more fully to develop and 
justify by proofs the Catholic arguments for the 
Real Presence.” Their repeated delivery at 


Vill PREFACE. 


Rome, and their publication in England, with such 
views and expectations, sanctioned the presump- 
tion that the greatest care had been taken to se- 
cure soundness in reasoning and minute correct- 
ness in statements. What farther tended to con- 
firm in me this supposition, was information com- 
municated by the same individual, that Dr. Wise- 
man’s book had made a strong impression on the 
minds of a few most estimable persons well known 
to him. I was thus led to read the work in ques- 
tion, and its perusal determined me to write the 
following pages, which will put the reader in pos- 
session of some reasons for the opinion which I 
was compelled to form of the book. I was sur- 
prised that any intelligent scholar of respectable 
acquirements in theology should attach much im- 
portance to it as a work of reasoning, and also 
that a person so distinguished by his own Church 
should have made such palpably erroneous state- 
ments as the Lectures furnish. Ihave pointed out 
some which had escaped the notice of Dr. Tur- 
ToNn,* one of the author’s English opponents. I 


* His book bears the following title: The Roman Catholic Doc- 
trine of the Eucharist considered, in reply to Dr. Wiseman’s Argu- 
ment from Scripture. By Tuomas Turton, D.D., Regius Professor 
of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and Dean of Peterborough, 
Cambridge, 1837, 8vo. To this work and some smaller treatises, Dr. 
Wiseman published a reply, dated London, 1839, 8vo. 


PREFACE. ix 


had no knowledge of this gentleman’s publication 
in reply to the Lectures until I had nearly com- 
pleted my Essay; and a subsequent examination 
of it, and also of Dr. Wiseman’s answer, and of a 
still later production by the venerable Fanzr,* 
suggested no sufficient reason to induce me to al- 
ter the plan of my treatise, or to modify my views 
either of the Lectures themselves, or of the dis- 
course of our Lord which they profess to explain. 

An examination of the four Lectures on this 
discourse very naturally strengthened an inclina- 
tion which IJ had for a considerable time enter- 
tained, of writing an exposition of the discourse it- 
self. To exhibit what I conceive to be its true 
sense and object, is the main design of the Essay, 
which is intended to be exegetical ; and in contro- 
verting some views of Dr. Wiseman, my design 
is chiefly to prepare the way for a proper devel- 
opment of our Lord’s meaning. The result is now 
presented to the reader in this little volume, with 
the earnest wish and prayer, that a feeble effort to 
advance the glory of God by an attempt to show 
the true meaning of a part of his most Holy Word 
may be accompanied by his blessing. 

* Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Tran- 


substantiation, &c. By Grorce STan.ey Fazer, B.D., Master of 
Sherburn Hospital, and Prebendary of Salisbury, 8vo, London, 1840, 


x PREFACE. 


The errors of Dr. Wiseman, referred to in the 
title of this edition, are noted in pages 11, 12, 25— 
27, 41, 42, 67, 68, 88-91. It is amazing that he 
should have committed blunders and made state- 
ments alike irreconcilable with that ordinary at- 
tention which every writer is expected to pay 
to his subject, and that honesty of purpose which 
marks the candid man. He misrepresents Tho- 
luck. This may be unintentional. Respecting 
the use of the word Devil in the Syriac New 
Testament, he makes a false statement, which a 
little attention would have enabled him to avoid. 
He represents a publication of Tittmann with a 
two-fold title, as if it were two distinct works, 
when he must have known better, as he actually 
quotes from the same book. He confounds two 
different facts in our Lord’s life, and this in a 
course of Lectures repeatedly delivered, thus 
showing a most extraordinary inattention. He 
makes an unfounded assertion respecting the time 
of the institution of baptism, without even an at- 
tempt to sustain it by any evidence. And, what 
is passing strange, he seems to identify the gloss 
of a late Jewish commentator with the original, 
which is hundreds of years older. Most, if not 
all of these errors, are passed over without notice 
by the English authors who have replied to his 


PREFACE. x) 


book. The position which, as a cardinal in En- 
gland, Dr. Wiseman now occupies, makes it more 
proper than ever to guard his readers against 
implicitly trusting a writer who has thus laid 
himself open to animadversion. 













thi) a 


2 mee PThEATHOD 


re: "tite iG ets ae ras TSS ae a 


of % a * ‘ v . . a aut Caan “4 iy semaine Wet 





; ; * oe ‘ 
¢ ae - . ; 
“A , ° 2 a 
fae mee), dL PRAT | ot eee 
i 4 ie oes - fl ’ rs a ea 


2 Cae RE ak iu * weruceonit cul: ye hcieetia tacd pee; meet, . 
- meee a) Meme a 

: ue 2 Zell TA; 
a: wot we. it ott i tira : 





tr? ? . ’ l Le tt. i . y , BOL ry [i - ar ~,! i 7 oe %. rae 


a! 
sa 


CONTENTS. 


PART § 


Examination of Dr. Wiseman’s View. . Se eae ee 
PART II. 

Analysis and Exposition of the Discourse . . . «-« « 48 
PART III. 


View of the Early Fathers, and of some Modern Divines . _ . 103 










| i . > My a ‘sual 2% 4x31 Farms wu 


atin ery ee: the * Site 
c te fre et) - { 
. 


rte gre} st ri 


‘ ' reba | et TR Fe aa ciate 
Pi . emaitoT 39 sd ¥ LS 
a Paid .m. = 4) jis = 
yo i v7 Trois be o ry" ty Ph ae it bh de ee 
4 7 a , - a 











ie 
s 
) a oa s i. « 
Ro Anh enhaloreinloe 16 Bo 
ae, Seed, ath Sao yy wae 73 le <jefive 
. A, Z J @ a P - ~~ 4 © 
; » e a SS ext 
eas: peoiereesiris aE an ‘F's 
“ we, .% a .. 
3 inet nT" } “4 4a, sa 
= el ‘BOUNRAT 3 q Kort: q 
* w te ere 6 
‘Wee Orsi fs ny 
. 
; & a he ph tate FE, 
=i ry as Laibhs & nad lt neck 
4 ¥ % 
vi 
es, 
y 





Hee eiDenthss Yi 


Paw | 
EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


In order to ascertain the import and true mean- 
ing of our Lord’s discourse to the Jews recorded 
in the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, it be- 
comes exceedingly important to keep in mind the 
particular circumstances that gave occasion to it. 

On the eastern side of the Sea of Tiberias Jesus 
had fed an immense multitude, amounting proba- 
bly to 8000 people,* on five barley loaves and 
two small fishes, and the fragments that remained 
after the whole were satisfied were sufficient to 
fill twelve baskets. This was certainly one of 
the most extraordinary miracles that he had ever 
performed, and we are not surprised that the 
witnesses and subjects of it acknowledge him to 
be the expected prophet. The erroneousness of 
their views, however, and the worldly character 
of their minds, are evident from their intention to 
seize him and make him king. In order to avoid 

* Mark, vi., 44, Luke, ix., 14, and John, vi., 14, speak of “about 
5000 men ;” Matthew, xiv., 21, does the same, adding, ‘‘ besides wom- 


en and children.” John, vi.,2, makes it probable that many of them 
were sick. 


A 


2 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


the excitement and evils which must have follow- 
ed such a course, our Lord, after dismissing the 
crowd, retires, agreeably to his manner, to pray 
in solitude. At evening his disciples embark in 
their vessel, with the intention, probably, of stop- 
ping farther up on the eastern side of the lake, 
where their Master would meet them, and then 
proceeding across to Capernaum, which was situ- 
ated on the western shore.* But an unexpected 
storm of wind preventing them from landing, and 
driving the vessel far into the lake, Jesus appear- 
ed to them not long before daybreak} walking 
on the water. Being received into the vessel, 
the sea became calm, and they soon reached the 
destined haven, vi., 1-21. 

On the following day, the excited multitude, 
not finding Jesus, and knowing that he had not 
embarked with his disciples, and having seen no 
other vessel than the one occupied py them, pro- 
cured other vessels and crossed the lake.[ F'ind- 
ing him at Capernaum, they expressed their won- 
der at his getting there, 22-25; and this is fol- 
lowed by the discourse now to be considered. 

In order to ascertain its true meaning, it is im- 
portant to determine whether the leading subject 
is throughout the same, or whether a transition 
must be allowed from one topic to another. Prot- 


* See NeEwcome’s Harmony, note, § 64. 

+ Matt., xiv., 24, 25. 

+ It is not necessary to suppose that the whole multitude went 
over. The Scripture often ascribes to a mass what is strictly ap- 
plicable to a part only. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 3 


estant commentators generally adopt the former 
view. Among the defenders of the latter Dr. 
Wiseman stands prominent, and as his book on 
the Eucharist professedly vindicates this view, 
and the Romanist doctrine of the Real Presence 
as supposed to be founded on this chapter, I shall 
examine the principal arguments alleged by him 
in confirmation of his theories, as preparatory to 
any direct analysis of the discourse itself. 

The author begins by laying down certain prin- 
ciples of interpretation, the correctness of which 
is unquestionable, while, at the same time, they 
recognise the fundamental importance of philo- 
logical investigation in order to attain a right 
knowledge of Scripture. In examining our Lord’s 
discourse in this chapter, he admits that, until 
“the 48th or 5lst verse, it refers entirely to be- 
lieving in him,” and that on this point “ Protest- 
ants and Catholics are equally agreed.” But he 
contends that here “a perfect transition is made 
from believing in Christ to a real eating of his 
body and drinking of his blood in the sacrament 
of the Eucharist,” while “the generality of Prot- 
estants maintain that no such transition takes 
place.” He argues that “there is a change of 
subject at the 48th verse,” and that “the transi- 
tion is to a real eating of the body of Christ,” p. 
50, 51. 

Dr. Wiseman considers the 48th and three fol- 
lowing verses as “a complete section of itself, 
verse 47 seeming” to him “ to form an appropri- 


4 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


ate close to a division of discourse, by the em- 
phatic asseveration amen” (verily) “ prefixed to a 
manifest summary and epilogue of all the prece- 
ding doctrine.” If what follows in his first para- 
graph is intended as proof of this, 1 am wholly 
unable to see its bearing, and must therefore pass 
itover. Not to deprive the more discerning read- 
er, however, of the advantage of the argument, I 
give it entire, in the author’s own words. “‘ Amen, 
amen, I say unto you, he that believeth in me 
hath everlasting life.’ Compare verses 35, 37, 45. 
Verse 48 lays down a clear proposition, ‘1 am 
the bread of life’ suggested by the preceding 
words, and just suited for the opening of a new 
discourse,” p. 52. 

His next proof is stated as follows: “But these 
words are exactly the same as open the first part 
of our Saviour’s lecture at verse 35.” Now the 
sacred “lecture” does not open at verse 35, but 
with the solemn censure of verse 26: “ Verily, 
verily, 1 say unto you, ye seek me, not because ye 
saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the 
loaves and were filled.” The 34th, “ Lord, ever- 
more give us this bread,” is merely the expression 
of desire with which some of his hearers interrupt- 
ed his discourse, as the woman of Samaria did in 
John, iv., 15. The author’s next remark, that it 
is “an ordinary form of transition with our Lord, 
when he applies the same images to different pur- 
poses, to repeat the very words by which he ori- 
ginally commenced his discourse,” even allowing 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 5 


it to be true, is therefore wholly irrelevant. Brt, 
admitting its applicability, the instances he pro- 
ceeds to give in order to illustrate the fact are 
not to the point, and his remarks on them neither 
founded on the evident intention of the divine 
speaker, nor, in my view, deserving of serious ref- 
utation. But that I may not be thought to do in- 
justice to the writer, I quote the whole of his il- 
lustrations. “I will give two or three instances,” 
that is, of the “ordinary form of transition” em- 
ployed by Christ. “In John, x., 11, he says, ‘1 
am the good shepherd ; and he then expatiates 
upon this character as it regards himself, con- 
trasting himself with the hireling, and expressing 
himself ready to die for his sheep. At verse 14 
he repeats the words once more, ‘I am the good 
shepherd, and explains them with reference to the 
sheep, how they hear and obey him, and how his 
flock will be increased. Again, John, xv., 1, he 
commences his discourse by ‘I am the true 
vine, and applies the figure negatively to the con- 
sequences of not being united to him. Then, at 
verse 5, he repeats the same words, and explains 
them positively of the fruits produced by those who 
do abide in him.* Exactly in the same manner, 


* «J consider the latter clause of verse 15 of the first passage, and 
verse 6, with the last member of verse 5, in the second, as merely 
incidental and parenthetic; as I think it will be allowed that the di- 
vision which I have suggested of each parable is manifest and nat- 
ural. In this remark I have joined the last member of verse 5 (John, 
xv.) with vétse 6, because it has long struck me that the common 
division of the verses there is not correct. The reasoning seems 
hardly conclusive, ‘he that abideth in me... beareth mw h fruit, be- 


A. 2 


6 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


in our passage, our Saviour, having spoken of him- 
self as bread, ‘I am the living bread,’ and expatia- 
ted on this thought in respect to his being the 
spiritual nourishment of the soul by faith, makes 
the same form of transition to treat of himself as 
bread in another sense, inasmuch as his flesh is- 
our real sustenance.” 

His “ principal motive” for maintaining a tran- 
sition immediately after verse 47, and the intro- 
duction of a new topic at verse 53, is “ the paral- 
Jelism of the members” of the intermediate verses. 
“ Nothing to me can be more striking than the 
regular arrangement of this discourse from verse 
48 to verse 52 inclusively; and whoever under- 
stands the principle, and is accustomed to its ap- 
plication, will immediately, upon inspecting the 
passage, as I have transcribed it, in the original 
and the version, acknowledge that it stands whol- 
ly detached from what precedes down to verse 
47, and that no transition can be allowed at any 
point but that. The following is the whole section 
of our Saviour’s discourse, versicularly arranged: 

(a) ‘I am the bread of life. 

(6) Your fathers did eat manna (bread from 
heaven, see verses 31, 32) in the desert, 


cause without me ye can do nothing’ (verse5). But if we put the 
stop after ‘much fruit,’ and join what follows to the next verse, we 
have a most expressive argument. ‘ Because without me ye can do 
nothing, if any one remain not in me, he snall be cast forth as a 
worthless branch,’ &c. Of course I need not remind my readers 
that we owe our present division into verses to the elde* Stephanus, 
who made it for his relaxation inter equitandum.”—The author’s might 
be thought to have been made inter dormuendum. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 7 


(c) And are dead. 
(a) This is the bread 

(}) Descending from heaven, (such), 

(c) Thatif any one eat of it, he may not die. 
(a) I am the living bread 
(6) Which came down from heaven. 
(c) If any man eat of this bread, he shall 
live forever. 
‘And the* bread which I will give is my flesh for 
the life of the world.’ 

“ You cannot avoid remarking the nice balance 
of these lines. All those marked (a) contain the 
same ideas of bread, and generally of life; the 
second ones (b) speak of the descent of this bread 
from heaven, contrasted with the manna; the 
third (c) impress its worth in the same compar- 
ative view. The last clause sums up and imbod- 
ies the substance of the preceding. That repeti- 
tion of the same idea and phrase, which at first 
sight appears superfluous in this passage, entirely 
vanishes upon viewing this arrangement, and there 
is a beautiful progression of sentiment, which gives 
a value to every repetition. Not to detain you 
with too many remarks, f will only instance the 
progressive character of the lines marked (c). 
The first speaks of the want of an immortalizing 
quality in manna; the second attributes such a 
quality to the manna of the new Covenant, but in 
negative terms, ‘that if any one eat of it, he may 
not die; the third expresses the same sentiment 
in a positive and energetic form. ‘If any man 


8 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW 


eat of this bread, he shall live forever.” Ile.ve it 
to Dr. Wiseman and the admirers of his Mag- 
nus Apollo in this department of Sacred Litera- 
ture, Bishop Jebb,* to “remark the nice balance 
of the lines” in this portion “of our Saviour’s dis- 
course, versicularly arranged.” I content myself 
with the remark, that the verses whose members 
this hermeneutical Procrustes has subjected to his 
operation, imbody the simple expression of a deep- 
ly important truth, rising, as is most natural, and 
in accordance with our Lord’s manner and that of 
his Evangelist, from a negative intimation to a 
strong, positive, life-inspiring declaration. Such 
extravagant abuse of the true principle of Hebrew 
parallelism tends to degrade this beautiful and po- 
etic characteristic of that sacred and venerable 
tongue. The limit that separates the sublime from 
the ridiculous is only one short step. 

Dr. Wiseman considers his “attempt to prove 
that there is a marked division of the discourse” 
as successful and important. On the former point, 
the reader must judge. The “importance” of it 
consists in its removing the “objection, that it is 
doing a violence to our Saviour’s discourse to sup- 
pose that he passes from one subject to another 
where there is nothing to indicate such a transi- 
tion.” “To remove it still farther,’ he refers to 


* No disrespect is intended to Bishop Jebb by this remark. Still 
I cannot but think that he has carried his application of the princi- 
ples of parallelism to a degree wholly unwarranted, and, indeed, ex- 
extravagant. See his Sacred Literature, London, 831, 8vo. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 9 


what he is pleased to call “a perfectly parallel 
instance,” in “the 24th and 25th chapters of St. 
Matthew.” “ The first part of the discourse con- 
tained in these chapters refers entirely to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem. It is acknowledged that 
its concluding portion is referable only to the final 
judgment; now where does the transition between 
the two occur? Why, some of the best com- 
mentators, as Kuinoel, and after him Bloomfield, 
place it at the forty-third verse of the twenty-fourth 
chapter. Now, if you read that passage atten- 
tively, you will be struck with the similarity of 
this transition to the one I have laid down for the 
sixth chapter of St. John. In the preceding verse 
(42) our Lord sums up the substance of the fore- 
going instruction, just as he does in John, vi., 47. 
‘Watch ye, therefore, because ye know not at 
what hour your Lord will come.’ ‘Amen, amen, 
I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath ever- 
lasting life.” He then resumes apparently the 
same figure, drawn from the necessity of watching 
a house, as he does that of bread in our case; but 
then the conclusion of the discourse points out that 
the ‘coming of the Son of man’ now mentioned 
(verse 44) is no longer the moral and invisible 
one spoken of in the preceding section (verses 30, 
37), but a real and substantial advent in the body 
(xxv.,;:31).” 

In reference to this intended illustration of the 
author, | would make two observations: first, the 
transition spoken of may indeed be found in the 


10 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


43d verse, but it may also be found with at least 
as much probability, and in harmony with sound 
exegetical principles, in the 36th. With the words 
“that day and hour,’ compare verse 42, “ye 
know not what hour your Lord doth come ;” verse 
44, “in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of 
man cometh;” verse 50, “ the Lord of that servant 
will come in a day when he looketh not for him, 
and in an hour that he is not aware of;” xxv., 18, 
“ve know neither the day nor the hour.” The 
author’s argument assumes the transition to be at 
the 43d verse; and if this assumption should be 
unfounded, the “ perfect parallel” is no parallel at 
all. Secondly, there is this striking difference be- 
tween the discourse in St. Matthew and that in 
St. John. In the latter no change of subject is 
either required by the series of instruction, or nat- 
ural in itself; in the former it is universally granted 
by judicious expositors that a transition is abso- 
lutely necessary, in order to give a fair and in- 
telligible meaning to the language. The latter 
part of the xxvth chapter contains undeniably a 
different subject from that which is apparent on 
the face of the former part of the xxivth. 

The author concludes his discussion of this topic 
by stating, “ that a learned and acute modern Prot- 
estant commentator has observed, that it is man- 
ifest that our Saviour cannot have been under- 
stood to continue the same subject at verse 51.” 
It would be unjust to Dr. Tholuck, the expositor 
referred to, to allow him to be understood as ex- 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 11 


pressing the view which this statement naturally 
implies. He is explaining the whole portion from 
verse 51 to verse 59 inclusive, and on citing the 
latter half of verse 51, “and the bread which I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life 
of the world,” he remarks, that the language kai— 
dé, denoting “a more extended development of the 
thought, shows that Christ does not here express 
the same that he had declared before.” Even 
these two lines, the latter of which is quoted by 
the lecturer, might have shown him that Tholuck 
means to represent our Lord as more fully de- 
veloping the view already given by adding a par- 
ticular circumstance of importance. But wha: 
estimate must we form of the accuracy of Dr. 
Wiseman’s statements, when we find his author 
proceeding as follows, immediately after the words 
quoted: “ Having represented, in general, his ap- 
pearance in humanity as axdivine food, he now 
intends to show in what respect it is so particu- 
larly. If his intention had been to express by 
these words only the very same idea before con- 
veyed, no reason can be given why he should 
change the quite clear expression, ‘I am the living 
bread,’ for the somewhat obscure one, ‘I will 
give you my flesh.” The future J will give refers 
to something yet to take place.” He means 
Christ’s death, as he afterward explains it. The 
same judicious distinction between the general 
thought and a more particular development of it 
had been clearly stated on the preceding page, 


2 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


where the profoundly learned and pious author re- 
marks that “ an accurate examination of the whole 
connexion, and of the particular phrases employed, 
shows that a more special meaning must be con- 
nected with these expressions, namely, that Christ, 
having betore only in a general way represented 
his incarnation as a divine living power, now makes 
prominent what was able, in a sense altogether 
peculiar, to convey that power of life, that is to 
say, his redeeming death, as the crowning point of 
his redeeming life.’* Had Dr. Wiseman read 
the work to which he refers, in confirmation of 
his own imagined “ transition to a new section of 
our Lord’s discourse?” and if so, does he call his 
representation of the author’s views a fair one ?¢ 

Dr. Wiseman proceeds, in his second lecture, to 
adduce farther evidence “that a complete change 
of topic takes place after the 48th verse.” After 
showing that “the phrases which occur in the 
first part of the discourse were calculated to con- 
vey to the minds of those who heard our Saviour 


* Commentar zum Evangelio Johannis, Hamburg, 1833, p. 129, 


130. 
+ Wiseman elsewhere does manifest injustice to “ this leamed and 


amiable professor,” whom he regards “with great personal esteem 
and friendship,” p. 141, 142. Correction in this case, however, can 
hardly be considered as necessary, as one who knows anything of 
the character of Tholuck as a commentator will not suspect him of 
the weakness of rejecting an interpretation, “because otherwise we 
must become Catholics !’ He does indeed say, that ‘‘if the expressions 
are not tropical, they would prove too much, namely, the Catholic 
doctrine.” But he does not allege the fact of its being Catholic doc 
trine as proof of its being too much. He presumes this to be al 


ready evident on other grounds. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 13 


the idea of listening to his doctrines and believing 
in him, and the more so, as he positively explain- 
ed them in that sense,” he affirms, “that after the 
transition a totally different phraseology occurs, 
which, to his hearers, could not possibly convey 
that meaning, nor any other save that of a real 
eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood,” 
p- 59, 60. My purpose confines me to an exami- 
nation of this last statement.* 

After giving several of the clauses which speak 
of “eating the flesh and drinking the blood,” the 
author proceeds with his comment. This I shall 
now quote, accompanied by such remarks as ap- 
pear suited to its character. 

“1, We have seen above, that after our Saviour, 
in consequence of difficulties found by the Jews, 
had commenced, at verse 35, to explain his senti- 
ments literally, he never returns again to the fig- 
urative expression until after he closes that sec- 
tion at verse 47. If we suppose him to continue 
the same topic after this verse, we must believe 
him, after having spent thirteen verses in doing 


* In illustrating the phraseology of the former portion of the dis- 
course, the author calls our attention to what he considers as “ very 
remarkable,” namely, “that never once through this part does our 
Saviour suffer the idea of eating him to escape his lips,” p. 63. It is 
true, he does not employ the language, but let any-one compare 
verses 32, 33, 35, 48, 50, with 57, 58, and he will see that they con- 
tain the idea, for they both imply and assert that the bread is to be 
eaten, and that he is the bread ; verses 51-58 inclusive show plainly 
that to eat him, which is identical with eating the bread that came 
down from heaven, and to eat his flesh and drink his blocd, are 
equivalent in meaning. 


B 


14 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW 


away with the obscurity of his parabolic expres- 
sions, and in giving the explanation of its figures, 
to return again to his obscure phrases, and to 
take up once more the use of the same parable, 
which he had so long abandoned for its literal 
explanation.” ‘To remove the impression intend- 
ed to be produced by this loose and inaccurate 
represeytation, it will be sufficient to remark, that 
several of the assertions here made are wholly 
unfounded. So far from the 35th verse begin- 
ning a “literal explanation of sentiments” before 
conveyed by “figurative expression,” the very 
first statement is figurative: “I am the bread of 
life,” and so also is the second: “he that cometh 
to me shall never hunger.” The author must 
have presumed that the greater proportion of his 
audience would not read the discourse on which 
he comments. The docile listener, who has been 
so trained as to abandon his natural right of in- 
quiring and judging for himself, and who, there- 
fore, acquiesces without examination in the cor- 
rectness of the statements made in his hearing, 
imagines that the lecturer’s minute and careful 
investigation must be sufficient warrant for the 
exposition ; whereas, the intelligent reader, who, 
with independence of mind and careful attention, 
looks at the discourse for himself, must imme- 
diately see that the representation made rests on 
no solid ground. It is true that, in general, the 
language of our Lord in several of the verses 
following the 35th is literal, but this is also true 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 15 


of that which precedes. There is nothing in the 
whole portion more literal, indeed nothing can 
possibly be more literal, than his answer to the 
question, “ What shall we do that we may work 
the works of God? This is the work of God, that 
ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” A simi- 
larity pervades the whole portion, and there is 
no evidence to support such a different mode of 
representation as is assumed. Of the thirteen 
verses said to be “spent in doing away the ob- 
scurity of parabolic expressions, and in giving 
the explanation of the figures,” three are nothing 
but a statement of the dissatisfaction of the Jews, 
and the Saviour’s direction to them to cease their 
murmurings. 

«2, We have seen likewise how carefully our 
Lord avoids, throughout the first part, the harsh 
expression to eat him, even where the turn of his 
phrase seemed to invite him to use it; on the 
contrary, in the latter section, he employs it with- 
out scruple, and even repeats it again and again. 
This is a remarkable difference of phraseology 


—— 


between the two sections.” The reader may | 


form no very incorrect opinion of Dr. Wiseman’s. 
accuracy from this statement. “The harsh ex-' 


pression,” which he says is “employed without 
scruple, and even repeated again and again,” oc- 
curs once, and only once, in verse 57. The ap- 
parently harsher expression, “ to eat his flesh and 
drink his blood,” does indeed occur several times 
‘in verses 53-56; but this is accounted for by the 


1G EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


close connexion in which these verses stand with 
the preceding one, which informs us that “ the 
Jews strove among themselves, saying, how can 
this man give us his flesh to eat?” a question 
which was suggested by our Lord’s words re- 
corded immediately before: “the bread that I 
will give is my flesh, which I will give for the 
life of the world.” Be it noted, also, that this 
harsher expression occurs nowhere else in the 
whole discourse; a fact quite consistent with the 
opinion, that while the phraseology is altered, the 
‘dea intended to be conveyed remains the same 
throughout. No argument can be founded on 
“our Lord’s avoiding,” in the early part of his 
discourse, “ the expression to eat him, even where 
the turn of his phrase” (it is said) “seems to in- 
vite him to use it;” for he does the same in what 
the author would call “the latter section.” See 
verses 50, 51, 58, in which he employs the lan- 
guage, eat of this bread, “ avoiding” (I might say) 
“the harsh expression,” eat me. The difference 
of phraseology, therefore, is not so remarkably 
great as the doctor would induce his reader to 
believe. | 

“3. So long as Christ speaks of himself as the 
object of faith, under the image of a spiritual food, 
he represents this food as given by the Father 
(verses 32, 33, 39, 40, 44) ; but after verse 47 he 
speaks of the food, which he now describes, as to 
be given by himself. ‘The bread which I will 
give is my flesh for the life of the world’ (verse 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 17 


52). ‘How can this man give us his flesh to 
eat?’ (verse 58). This marked difierence in the 
giver of the two communications, proposed in the 
two divisions of the discourse, points out that a 
different gift is likewise promised. If faith is the 
gift in both, there is no ground for the distinction 
made in them; if there is a transition to a real 
eating, the whole is clear. While we consider 
Jesus Christ and his doctrine as the object of our 
faith, he is justly described as sent and presented 
to us by the Father ; when we view him as giv- 
ing his flesh to eat, it is by the precious bounty 
of his own love towards us.” Here it may be 
replied, that whether the language of verse 51, 
“the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I 
will give for the life of the world,” be explained 
of the atonement made by our Lord “in his own 
body on the tree,” or in reference to the Romanist 
doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, 
the orthodox believer in the Trinity would hardly 
deny, that in either case the Father might well 
be said to be the giver, while the blessing is 
equally the gift of the Son. The “marked dif- 
ference in the giver,” therefore, is rather appa- 
rent than real, and no inference can be drawn 
from it in favour of “a different gift.” Both the 
sacred persons give the same thing, which may 
therefore be stated as the gift of each. The 
author’s language, “if faith is the gift in both 
communications,” need hardly be animadverted 
on, as its inaccuracy is doubtless attributable to 


B2 


18 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


haste or incensideration. Faith is the instrument 
by which the blessed donation is received No 
sound Protestant considers it as the gift itself. 
“4, The difference here discernible between 
the givers is no less marked regarding the ef- 
fects of the gift. To both are attributed the hav- 
ing everlasting life, and being raised up at the 
last day (verses 40, 44, 47, 52, 55, 59). But be- 
yond this there is a marked distinction. In the first 
part of the discourse our blessed Saviour always 
speaks of our coming to him through the attrac- 
tion or drawing of the Father (verses 35, 36, 44, 
45). Now this expression is ever used when 
speaking of faith, to which we apply that part 
of his discourse. For example: ‘ Come unto me, 
all you that labour’ (Mat., xi., 28, cf. 27) ; ‘ Hvery 
one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and 
doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like’ 
(Luke, vi., 47); ‘Search the Scriptures, for you 
think in them to have everlasting life; and the 
same are they that give testimony of me; and 
ye will not come to me, that ye may have life’ 
(John, v., 89, 40) ; ‘If any man thirst, let him come 
unto me and drink. He that believeth in me, 
&c. (vii., 87, 38), where the same image is used as 
in the first part ef the discourse in the sixth chap- 
ter, Hence our Redeemer, at the conclusion of 
his discourse, says, ‘But there are some of you 
that believe not..... therefore did I say to you, 
that no man can come unto me, unless it be given 
him by the Father.’ In this manner, the quali- 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 19 


ties of the first method cf receiving Christ’s food, 
are precisely what we should expect if he treated 
of belief. 

“ But, after the place where we suppose the tran- 
sition made, he speaks no longer of our coming 
to him, but of our abiding in him, and he in us 
(verses 57, 58). And this is a phrase which al- 
ways intimates union by Jove. Thus (John, xiv., 
28), ‘If any one love me, he will keep my word, 
and my I*ather will love him, and we will come 
to him, and will make our abode with him.’ In 
the 15th chapter (verses 4-9), the figure drawn 
from the necessity of the branches being united 
to the vine, gives the same result. ‘As the 
branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abide 
in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide 
PRIMES 5x Abide in my love.’ In the first Epis- 
tle of St. Jchn, it is distinguished from faith as an 
effect from the cause. ‘If that abide in you which 
you have heard from the beginning (the word of 
faith), you also shall abide in the Son and in the 
Father’ (i., 24). ‘And now, little children, abide 
in him, that when he shall come we may have con- 
fidence, and not be confounded by him at his com- 
ing.” These words are more clearly explained 
in the 4th chapter (verses 16, 17), ‘He that abi- 
deth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him. 
In this is the charity of God perfected within us, 
that we may have confidence in the day of judg- 
ment.’ In addition, compare iil., 24; iv., 12, 13.” 

A plain man would think that “the difference 


20 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


in the effects” cannot be very “ marked,” if such 
blessed consequences “as having everlasting life, 
and being raised up at the last day,” are equally 
the result of each. Does Dr. Wiseman mean that 
“beyond tuis there is a marked distinction?” 
After having greatly excited our desire to know 
what this extraordinary distinction is, he tells us 
that “in the first part of the discourse,” and else- 
where, our Saviour speaks of faith by the lan- 
guage coming to him, but after the supposed tran- 
sition he does not speak of our coming to, but of 
our abiding in him, which intimates a union by 
love; to illustrate which he quotes several very 
apposite passages. Hence he concludes that “we 
have the effects of the doctrine inculcated after 
the 48th verse, given us quite different from those 
before rehearsed ; and as the latter apply to fazth, 
these are such as describe a union with Christ 
through Jove. Something, therefore, is here deliv- 
ered or instituted, which tends to nourish and per- 
fect this virtue, and not faith; the topic, therefore, 
is changed, and atransition has taken place. And 
what institution more suited to answer this end 
than the Blessed Eucharist? What could be 
more truly an instrument or means for our abiding 
in Christ and Christ in us?” He allows everlast- 
ing life to be the effect of faith, while, at the same 
time, he implies that a union with Christ by love, 
taught exclusively in the latter part of our Lord’s 
discourse, is an effect “quite different” from and 
“beyond” it. Does he mean to teach ns that ev- 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 2) 


erlasting life, the legitimate “ effect” of faith, is at- 
tainable without a union with Christ, and that such 
union draws after it some other “effect,” some 
higher benefit? “Something,” says he, “is here 
delivered or instituted, which tends to nourish and 
perfect this virtue (love), and not faith; the topic, 
therefore, is changed, and a transition has taken 
place.” Undoubtedly something is here delivered 
and taught which does more directly tend to nour- 
ish and perfect love, and that something is “a true 
and lively faith,” such as St. Paul describes in He- 
brews, xi., 1, “ which stirreth and worketh inward- 
ly in the heart.”* Why, then, should we suppose 
that the topic is changed? Why is not the same 
living principle acting in all its holy energy upon 
the object which, most of all, is likely to call forth 
its efficiency, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ’s 
precious body and blood, still to be regarded as 
the sole topic of our Lord’s discourse throughout? 
There is evidently no reason for supposing a 
change of subject at all; but if there were, the 
newly-introduced topic would be, by the author’s 
own showing, “a union with Christ by love.” 
Any especial reference to the eucharist would be, 
I do not say inadmissible, but certainly unneces- 
sary. 

- 5. Our opponents suppose the phrases in the 
two portions of the discourse to be parallel, and 
to refer equally to faith. By this reasoning it fol- 


* See Homily entitled “ A short Declaration of the true, lively, and 
Christian Faith.” 


22 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S ite 


lows, that to eat his flesh (verses 54, 55, 56, 57) 
means the same as to possess the bread of life 
mentioned in the former section (verses 82, 33, 
35).” And what does the author advance to show 
that it does not? “If,’ says he, “to feed on 
Christ mean to believe in Christ, then to eat the 
flesh of Christ (if the phrase has to be considered 
parallel) must signify to believe in the flesh cf 
Christ. This is absurd: for the flesh and blood 
of Christ were not an object of faith to those who 
really sinned by believing him too literally to 
be only a man; nor can our belief in them be the 
source of eternal life.’—-P. 71. Now this is mere 
trifling ; for no Protestant, in view of our Lord’s 
discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John, ever 
identified “believing in the flesh of Christ” with 
believing him “too literally to be only a man :” 
and this the learned writer very well knew. The 
figment is original with Dr. Wiseman. The views 
implied or referred to in the remainder of the par- 
agraph have already been considered, or shall be 
in the sequel. 

The author, however, seems to think that all 
the nice distinctions which he has thus far made 
are either themselves of little importance (an 
opinion which I am sure will have the sanction 
of a large proportion of his most judicious read- 
ers), or else that, however great may be their ab- 
solute force when placed in the balance with the 
vast weight of what remains in the last place to 
be adduced, their comparative lightness will be 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 23 


erceived by every one. His sixth and conclu- 
ding demonstration is introduced as follows : 

“6. But all the differences which I have hith- 
erto pointed out are mere preludia to the real, 
and, I trust, decisive examination of the point 
which yet remains.” Notwithstanding the array 
of learning displayed in the argument thus in- 
troduced,* I shall venture to endeavour to follow 
the steps of the erudite author. If, perchance, 
something like a slip of the leader’s foot should 
here and there be traced on the surface, let it not 
be forgotten that to stand firmly on such a ground 
requires all but a native right to the soil. 

The argument is philological. The author in- 
quires into the meaning of the phrase, “ to eat the 
flesh of a person,” in order to ascertain whether, 
when used by our Lord in this chapter, it can “be 
taken figuratively.” And, after stating that the 
words must either be taken in their literal sense, 
or else in that figurative sense which usage has 
attached to them, he affirms, “that whether we 
examine the phraseology of the Bible, or the ordi- 
nary language of the people who still inhabit the 
same country, and have inherited the same ideas, 
or, in fine, the very language in which our Sav- 
iour addressed the Jews, we shall find the expres- 


* The edition of Dr. Wiseman’s book which I have made use of 
1s that of Philadelphia, published by Eugene Cummiskey. If it 
should be thought advisable to issue another edition, it is hoped that 
attention will be paid to the Hebrew and Arabic quotations. The 
unfortunate misplacing of the words must have excited a smile in the 
author, if a copy of this should have fallen into his hands. 


24 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


sion, fo eat the flesh of a person, signifying inva- 
riably, when used metaphorically, to attempt to do 
him some serious injury, principally by calum- 
ny or false accusation. Such, therefore, was 
the only figurative meaning which the phrases 
could present to the audience at Capernaum.”— 
P. 74. 

He proceeds to show that the phrase in ques- 
tion is thus used in the Hebrew Bible, and occa- 
sionally in the New Testament; also, that the 
same metaphorical terms appear in the Koran 
and other Arabic writings; and that, in Latin, 
and, indeed, in most languages, calumny is ex- 
pressed under the figure of gnawing, biting, &c. 
All this is, of course, unquestionable. 

He then “ passes to the language which our Sav- 
iour himself spoke” (or is generally supposed to 
have spoken), “ and which was vernacular among 
the Jews whom he addressed.” He shows that 
the same sort of figurative language appears in 
Chaldee and in Syriac. But it ought not to es- 
cape his reader’s notice, that the usage in these 
languages, as appealed to by Dr. Wiseman, is not 
precisely parallel with the phrase to eat the flesh 
of one, the original words being "1 *¥9p 75x, and 
invariably meaning, to eat bits or morsels of one, 
not 8103, flesh ; in the words of Winer, whom he 
quotes, “alicujus frusta comedere,” “ die Stiicken 
jemandes fressen.” Still, though there is some 
difference in the words, the expression no doubt 
means to calumniate, 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 25 


Here it may be remarked, in passing, that Dr. 
Wiseman’s assertion, “that the name dd6oAo¢ 
(devil) is translated throughout the Syriac ver- 
sion of the New Testament by ‘xp Sax, ochel 
kartzo, the eater of flesh” (a bit), is strangely in- 
correct. The author makes the same statement 
in his Lectures on the Principal Doctrines and 
Practices of the Catholic Church. The fact 
stands thus: The word d:d6cdo¢ occurs in the 
New Testament thirty-eight times, in nineteen of 
which the Syriac version does not employ this ex- 
pression, but four others. Once, Luke, viil., 12, 
it uses a compound term, denoting enemy; once, 
Acts, x., 38, the word for wicked or evil; three 
times, Rev., xii., 9, 12; xx., 2, a word synony- 
mous with impostor, deceiver ; and fourteen times, 
Mait., xii., 89... .Luke, iv.,.5..° John, vie AR} 5iil., 
D565: Dic D icy dts, Ges hayes Bi Eating dg 26.5: ddeby is 
14:; James. i¥., TeehPetsv<8.. 2 Johanna 
three times, and verse 10, the word Satan. The 
representation of Dr. Wiseman is true only of the 
other nineteen places in which da6odAog is found. 
This should make the reader cautious how he re- 
ceives the doctor’s statements of this kind without 
examination; for it must be admitted that, in this 
instance, there is an unpardonable want of accu- 
racy, to say the least.* 


* Since writing the above, the author’s reply to certam English 
controversial publications has come into my hands. In the fourth 
Lecture of his original work, p. 145, in endeavouring to show that the 
term flesh cannot be used in our Lord’s discourse to denote “ the lit- 
eral sense,” as “letter is in some instances,” he adds, “ especially in 


© 
! 


26 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN ’S VIEW. 


In the third Lecture he proceeds to show that 
the Jews regarded drinking blood as highly crim- 


a chapter wherein it has been used twenty times in its ordinary mean- 
ing.” One of his opponents, Dr. Turton, mentions the fact that the 
word had been employed before the 63d verse but five times by our 
Lord, and ence by the Jews. Dr. Wiseman endeavours to vindicate 
himself from the charge of ‘‘ extraordinary exaggeration” by saying, 
that by the expression “ twenty times, he meant, as every one not 
engaged in controversy would have understood, often.” —Reply, p. 19. 
The reader will determine whether such looseness is allowable in a 
writer engaged in philological discussion. The remark, in a note, that 
he “had accurately stated, in its proper place, the number of times 
the phrase was used, while here the subject came in indirectly,” is 
inadmissible, as the frequency of the use cf the term was evidently 
intended to have a bearing on his argument. 

Another representation of this author is of so extraordinary a na- 
ture that I forbear any attempt to characterize it. In his second lec- 
ture, p. 87, 88, he had quoted from TirTMANn’s Meletemata Sacra. Dr. 
Turton objected to his application of this writer’s language. In re- 
ply, after speaking of “the Regius Professor’s either blundering or 
unfair comment” as “a curious specimen of the learning of a contro- 
versialist,” our author remarks as follows: “ But this is not the most 
curious part of this extraordinary proceeding. I quoted the Melete- 
mata Sacra. I suppose the learned professor was unacquainted with 
the work; so, like a good controversialist—certainly not like a good 
scholar—he goes ta another work of Tittmann’s, and from that at- 
tempts to confute me. This is his commentary on St. John. Now 
in this, Tittman, being a Protestant, interrupts our Lord’s discourse 
Protestantly, and says, ‘apud nostros,’ that is, among German Prot- 
estants, there is no doubt that no reference is here intended to the 
Blessed Sacrament. But how, I ask, does this opinion of Tittmann’s 
invalidate his statement, that it is not by the usus loguendi that this 
interpretation is attained, which is all that I quoted him for? Sup- 
pose that the learned German admits other ways of arriving at an ex- 
planation of phrases; this does not prove my allegation of him false, 
when I cited him to contradict Mr. Townsend’s assertion, that the 
Protestant interpretation zs based on the usus loguendi. The words 
from the Meletemata Sacra are as clear as those from the Commenta- 
ry; nor will any quotation from the latter obscure or invalidate the 
former.”—Reply, &c., p. 186. 

The scholar will know what to think of this. The merely general 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. pay’ 


inal, and eating human flesh as implying “ the most 
dreadful curse which the Almighty could inflict.” 
Hence he infers that our Saviour cannot be sup- 
posed to “have clothed doctrines no ways repul- 
sive under imagery drawn from such an odi- 
ous source; that nothing but the absolute neces- 
sity of using such phrases could justify the re- 
currence to them; and, therefore, that he used 
them because it was his wish to teach the doctrine 
which they literally convey, that of the Real Pres- 
ence.”-—P. 97, 98. 

The proposition on which the argument is based 
is undoubtedly true. The Hebrews, in common 
with a large proportion of mankind, cherished the 
feeling ascribed to them; but the inference found- 
ed upon it is by no means a necessary result. 
The figure of eating is suggested by the miracle 
performed the day before; it is continued, most 
probably, in consequence of the captious Jews 
having referred to the manna, as miraculously 
given by Moses for the support of their forefathers ; 
reader will hardly Bbélieve me when I assure him that the Melete- 
mata Sacra is the same book as the Commentary—that the very 
words “‘apud nostros” (to which the learned author adds, “nec apud 
verum doctum esse potest,” showing that he had no idea of limiting 
the doubt to “ German Protestants”) occur on p. 276, which are her 
professedly drawn from ‘ another work”—and, moreover, that the 
edition quoted by Wiseman, in his second Lecture, is that of Leipsic, 
1816, now lying before me, the title-page of which is as follows: 
** Caroli Christiani Tittmanni, Theol. Doct., &c., &c., Meletemata 
Sacra sive Commentarius Exegetico-Critico-Dogmaticus in Evan- 
gelium Joannis.” Comment is superfluous.—Titimann’s book is 


well worth the attention of theological students. It is learned, sen 
sible, and pious. 


28 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


and the particular phraseology evidently repeats 
and amplifies the language of their own objection, 
as I have just stated. The expressions, to eat me, 
and to eat my flesh and drink my blood, contain 
identically the same thought ; and if the one would 
necessarily be revolting to a Jew, as implying 
what is disgusting and criminal, so also would the 
other, as intimating to his mind the idea of canni- 
balism. And yet it is allowed that this might be, 
and it is quite evident that it is, employed in the 
figurative meaning, which those who dissent from 
the doctrine of the Real Presence would attach to 
the other. (See p. 70, bot.) The argument of 
the author is vastly stronger against the whole 
doctrine of transubstantiation than it is against 
a figurative use of such phraseology. The infer- 
ence naturally to be drawn, when language is em- 
ployed which “orders a person to commit what 
he” not only “deems, but really is, a heinous crime,” 
is this, that such language must not be understood 
literally ; whereas, according to Wiseman’s sys- 
tem, our Lord’s hearers, and his followers in every 
age, are actually required to do what is consider- 
ed so exceedingly criminal. Surely, in avoiding 
an imaginary Scylla, the lecturer has plunged into 
a real Charybdis. 

I proceed now to what is called “ the most im- 
portant proof.” This is stated to be “the direct 
testimony of those addressed (as) to how they un- 
derstood our Saviour, and his warrant for the cor- 
rectness of their interpretation.”—-P. 99,100. The 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN S VIEW. 29. 


former remark proves nothing more than that the 
Jews misunderstood him, as they had often done 
before; the latter would settle the point if it could 
be admitted, but, unfortunately, it is not true. 
Before I examine the grounds alleged by the au- 
thor in defence of it, I cannot but express my 
wonder that he should close some observations 
tending merely to show how our Lord’s hearers 
understood him, with the language, “Thus far, 
then, we have the strongest testimony we can re- 
quire to our Saviour’s having passed in his dis- 
course to the literal eating of his flesh” (p. 102), 
when the testimony does not purpose to prove 
anything beyond this single point, that he had been 
literally understood by them. Their misaporehen- 
sion is represented as the real meaning! 

He asserts, “ That whenever our Lord’s hearers 
found difficulties or raised objections to his words, 
from taking them in their literal sense, while he 
intended them to be taken figuratively, his con- 
stant practice was to explain them instantly in a 
figurative manner,* even though no great error 
could result from their being misunderstood.”— 
P. 103. He adduces several instances (although 
Matt., xix., 24, and John, viii., 21, are very little 
to the point), and undoubtedly our Lord very often 
did explain his meaning. But to infer from ordi- 
nary practice a universal, invariable usage, with- 
out a single exception, cannot be admitted. There 


* He means, that our Lord made his hearers know that the tan- 
guage was figurative, and communicated his thought in proper terms. 


C2 


30 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW 


might be strong reasons, and sometimes not ascer- 
tainable by us, for amitting explanation in partic- 
ular cases, which would net ordinarily apply. 
‘he conclusion drawn is universal in its applica- 
tion, while the induction of particulars intended to 
sustain it is, at the most, only general. Admitting 
that our Lord adopted the method of instructing 
by parable in order to make the best and most 
lasting impression, it is impossible to deny that he 
explained himself more clearly to his disciples than 
he did to certain others. “ Unto you it is given to 
know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but 
unto them that are without all these things are 
‘done in parables. Without a parable spake he not 
unto them, and when they were alone he expound- 
ed all things to his disciples.”—Mark, iv., 11, 34. 
In Matt., xvi., 4, indignant at the people’s contin- 
ued want of faith, notwithstanding the most direct 
evidence, he declares that no sign should be given 
them but that of Jonas the prophet, without ex- 
plaining wherein it consisted; and in xxi., 27, he 
expressly refuses to “tell by what authority” he 
acted. The cases in John, i1., 19, 20, and in iv., 
10-15, where his figurative language is misunder- 
stood, while nothing explanatory is added, are ex- 
amined by the author; but he does in express 
words, and with marked inconsistency, abandon 
his own theory, and contradict the affirmation 
with which he set out. In the words just quoted 
he states that “our Lord’s constant practice was 
to explain ;” on page 107, “from examples” alleged 


EXAMINATION Of D&. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 31 


by him, he “deduces a very certain coroilary or 
canon, that whenever our Saviour’s expressions 
were erroncously taken in their literal sense, and 
he meant them to be figurative, it was his con- 
stant practice instantly to expiain himself, and let 
his audience understand that his words were to 
be taken figuratively.” Let us turn now to page 
117 and 119. “I have never said that our Sav- 
iour was bound to answer the objections of the 
Jews; but I have examined only his practice when 
he did answer or explain, and have found that his 
conduct was precisely that of an honest and up- 
right teacher, who corrected mistakes,* and enfor- 
ced his doctrines without fear. But in the case of 
John, i., he deems it right to give no answer at ail, 
and the passage only proves that our Saviour 
sometimes declined answering an objection” (he 
should have said explaining a figure). “'To the 
instance,” in John, iv., “I will briefly reply, that 
our Saviour declines answering” the Samaritan 
woman’s “ difficulty at all.” Reaily, either bonus 
dormitat Homerus noster, or he presumes very 
much on the lethargic disposition of his hearers 
and readers. The avowed abandonment of his 
own principle entirely precludes the necessity of 
a more minute examination of his remark. 

The author’s fourth and last Lecture remains to 
be considered. Init he continues his argument by 

* Does the doctor mean to imply, that when he did not correct mis 


takes, that is, when he did not answer or explain, his conduct was 
not precisely that of an honest and upright teacher ? 


32 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


an “analysis of our Saviour’s answer to the Jews 
aud their incredulity,” and also by examining his 
conduct to his disciples and apostles. After an- 
swering “ objections to” what he is pleased to call 
“the Catholic interpretation of the chapter,” he 
closes the subject.—P. 123, seq. 

In reviewing the author’s course of remark, it is 
impossible to avoid the difficulty of prolixity, 
which mest probably the reader, in common with 
myself, has already felt in this discussion. It is 
necessary to present the argument, if not in all cases 
as fully as it is stated in the author’s work, yet al- 
ways sufficiently so to be clearly understood, and 
afterward to say what may be proper: in reply. 
What in the original Lecture may be comprehend- 
ed within very narrow limits, may require a con- 
siderable space in order to be suitably examined. 
I shall endeavour to be brief, unless at the expense 
of necessary indefiniteness and obscurity. 

1, The first argument is founded on “ the double 
form, negative and positive,” in which the “ pre- 
cept” that contains the “doctrine” is conveyed 
(verses 53, 54), which he compares with “the 
words of St. Mark, ‘He that believeth and is bap- 
tized snal! be saved, but he that believeth not shall 
be condemned,’” xvi., 16. Hence he is led to make 
‘two reflections:” first, “the beautiful similarity 
of form with which we find the two principal sac- 
raments of the Christian religion inculcated, if with 
the Catholic Church we suppose the words of St. 
John to refer to the Eucharist ;” and, secondly 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 33 


“the clearness of the expression in St. Mark, and 
the absolute absence of comprehensibility in that 
of St. John, the moment we take it in the Protest- 
ant sense.” Neither of these reflections contains 
any argument. The latter is an instance of that 
begging of the question which appears not unfre- 
quently in the work, and, consequently, does not 
require notice; and the former only proves that 
the form of expression in the two cases is similar. 
To infer from this that the words under consider- 
ation were intended to teach the doctrine of the 
Real Presence is ridiculous. All that the compari- 
son of the two places shows is this, that in giving 
instructions, or laying down laws with their sanc- 
tions, our Lord and his Apostles sometimes adopt 
the negative and the positive forms in connexion. 
Among numerous instances, it may be sufficient to 
select two. “ Whosoever shall confess me before 
men, him will I confess also before my Father 
which is in heaven; but whosoever shall deny me 
before men, him will I also deny before my Father 
which is in heaven.”—Matt., x., 832,33. “ He that 
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he 
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the 
wrath of God abideth on him.”—John, iii., 36. 

2. Our search for argument in the next para- 
graph is equally fruitless. Indeed, the writer here 
shows a rashness in exposing his Church to attack 
which is really amazing. “In these words, our 
Lord makes a distinction between eating his body 
and drinking his blood; a distinction without any 


o4 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


real signification or force, if he be not speaking of 
the Real Presence; for to partake of the blood of 
Christ by faith adds nothing to the idea of parta- 
king of his body.” I will not lay any stress on 
the fact, that in this discourse our Lord never em- 
ploys the word “ body” at all (although, in refer- 
ence to the interpretation which explains it exclu- 
sively of the eucharist, it is not unimportant), for 
its use by our author may be a mere inadvertence. 
But if there really be such a significant and forci- 
ble distinction, and if the command to drink the 
blood is as unlimited as that to eat the flesh, both 
being intended to be understood literally, on what 
ground of Scripture or reason do Dr. Wiseman 
and his coadjutors withhold the blood from the 
people, that very blood which has a distinctive 
force and significancy? So far as anything like 
argument in the passage may be discerned, the 
answer is simply what has been before said, name- 
ly, that the two phrases eating the flesh and drink- 
ing the blood are employed emphatically, both con- 
veying the idea of a thorough reception, and, by 
consequence, a most intimate union. 

3. The third argument is founded partly on the 
supposition that our Saviour meant to answer an 
objection, and partly on the asseveration expressed 
by the words verily, verily. This, it is said, is 
unwarrantable, “if he meant to be understood only — 
of a belief in his death, to which doctrine the ob- 
jection of the Jews was not directed.” Certainly it 
wasnot. Neitherisit said by orthodox Protestants 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 35 


that a mere belief in his death is what our Lord 
intended ; but a belief in it as an atoning sacrifice 
for sin, and such a belief as recognises its value 
and necessity, giving to the believer a vital union 
with the sacred object of his faith, and leading 
him to a correspondent life of cbedience. This 
is what the hearers had no conception of, and 
therefore they express not so much their “ objec- 
tion to the doctrine,” as their inability to under- 
stand the meaning of the words by which it was 
conveyed. “How can this man give us his flesh 
to eat?” is equivalent to saying, “this is unintelli- 
gible and absurd.” The “strong asseveration” is 
not, as Dr. Wiseman supposes, “an answer to a 
difficulty,” but a repetition of the announcement 
before made, and it is imbodied in the very words 
of the cavillers. Whether the supposition, that he 
thus “insists on the necessity of believing in him” 
in such a way as has been just stated, “is to ima- 
gine him acting wantonly and insincerely with 
their judgment and feelings whom he had under- 
taken to instruct,” as the author affirms, is a point 
which shall be afterward considered. 

4, The next remark relates to the expression in 
verse 55, “my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood 
is drink indeed,” or “truly meat and truly drink,” 
which he regards as “confirming the literal mean- 
ing of the words.” He acknowledges “that the 
word truly* is spoken, not merely of identity of 


* Whether we adopt the reading ddnOfs or aAn9as, the sense re- 
mains the same. 


36 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


things, but also of their qualities, so thag Christ 
calls himself the true vine when he only spake in 
parables.” But he asks, “ While the Jews under- 
stood our Saviour to speak of really intending to 
give them his flesh to eat, if they were wrong, can 
we suppose him to answer them by saying, that 
his flesh was really meat? Or can we, under 
these circumstances, imagine him to use the word 
at all, and that twice and emphaticaily, unless he 
wished to be taken literally?” This is nothing 
more than a repetition of what he had said in the 
former paragraph, and might be dismissed without 
farther remark. Yet it may be well to note, that 
the same sort of language is employed in a pre- 
vious part of the chapter, where no one thinks of 
a literal interpretation. See verses 32-85, and 
compare Luke, xvi., 11. “If ye have not been 
faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will 
commit to your trust the true?” The use of the 
word does not prove that it must be taken literal- 
ly, but, rather, that it is intended to impress and 
inculcate some most important consideration 

5. The last “ confirmation” of the literal sense is 
found in “the harsh expression (verse 57), ‘he that 
eateth me.’” It is left to make its own impression 
on the reader, whom it is sufficient to remind, that 
wisdom, personified under the image of a female, 
employs the same language: “They that eat me 
shall yet be hungry, and they that drink me shall 
yet be thirsty."—Eccles., xxiv., 21. 

Dr. Wiseman, having thus satisfied himself that 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMANS VIEW. 37 


“ almost in every phrase this reply of our Saviour 
affords a strong confirmation of the Catholic doc- 
_ trine,” proceeds “ to consider the effects which this 
answer produced upon his hearers.” 

1. “Instead of removing their previous difficul- 
ties, it manifestly confirmed them.” They regard- 
ed his “proposition as harsh and revolting, and 
could not bear to listen to it. They were more 
convinced than ever that he spoke of the real man- 
ducation of his flesh.’—All this only shows that 
they persisted in misunderstanding his meaning. 

2. “Jesus answered these murmurs by the 
words, Doth this scandalize you? If, then, ye shall 
see the Son of Man ascend up where he was be- 
fore! (verses 61, 62).” According to Dr. Wiseman, 
the object of this reply of our Lord “is to refer his 
auditors to a great and striking proof which he 
was to give that he had divine authority to teach, 
and that his words were to be believed, whatever 
difficulties they might present.” And this view, 
he thinks, is illustrated by John, i., 50, 51, and 
Matt., xxvi., 63,64. He “considers the appeal 
to his ascension in the sixth chapter of St. John” as 
equivalent to the inquiry, “ Would you not receive 
my word after such a confirmation?” But the 
force of this argument depends wholly on the au- 
thor’s interpretation of the question; whereas the 
more natural sense, and which is better sustained 
by the context, is that which makes our Lord im- 
ply the absurdity of the literal meaning, by ap- 
pealing to the manifest unreasonableness and self- 


D 


38 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


contradiction of literally eating his flesh and drink. 
ing his blood, after his body should have been re- 
moved from them into heaven. 

3. “The consequence of this conference is, that 
‘many of his disciples went back, and walked no 
more with him’ (verse 67). Can we suppose that 
Jesus would have allowed things to come to this 
extremity, that he would cast away forever many 
of his disciples, when an explanation in two words 
would have saved them? And yet even this did. 
he, if the Protestant interpretation of his dis¢éurse 
be true.” Here, again, the lecturer assumes, more 
suo, an honest and candid disposition in the dis- 
ciples who relapsed. But let us suppose that they 
were governed by worldly and merely prudential 
considerations, and we may easily account for 
their going back, as “they had no root in them- 
selves.” They may have sought the prophet of 
Nazareth, “not because they saw the miracles” 
and felt their force, “but because they did eat of 
the loaves and were filled,” and hoped to eat again. 
This representation of their character will be more 
particularly illustrated, and its correctness evinced. 
in a subsequent part of the Essay. 

4, Christ’s conduct towards the twelve is al- 
leged as “affording additional assurance of the 
correctness of the literal interpretation of his dis- 
course. He asks them, after the departure of oth- 
er disciples, ‘ Will ye also go?’ Whoever reads 
the answer which Peter gives to this touching 

1estion must be convinced that the Apostles were 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMANS VIEW. 39 


manifestly perplexed as to the nature of their di- 
vine Master’s intentions. For Peter does not even 
allude to the doctrines taught, but throws himself 
entirely upon his belief in our Saviour’s authority, 
and answers accordingly: ‘ Lord, to whom shall 
we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.— 
(Verse 69.) Now when we consider that to them 
it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom 
of God, it must appear extraordinary that even 
to them he should not have condescended to give 
any explanation of this singular enigma, which 
Protestants suppose him to have been uttering. 
By one only hypothesis can we solve this difficul- 
ty, by acknowledging that they had really under- 
stood him right, but that he spoke of a mystery 
which only required faith—and that they had 
clearly professed through Peter—but which could 
not receive any explanation, so as to bring it with- 
in the comprehension of reason.” 

To reply as nearly as possible in the writer’s 
own words, I would say: “ When we consider 
that to the Apostles it was given to know the mys- 
teries of the kingdom of God,* it must appear ex- 
traordinary that even to them he should not have 
condescended to give any” illustration of, or tc 
remove any difficulty relating to, “this singular 
mystery, which” Romanists “ suppose him to have 
been uttering.” For, allowing that it “ cannot re- 
ceive any explanation so as to bring it within the 
comprehension of reason,” yet, as it is apparently 


'* Luke, viii., 10. 


40 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


at variance with reason, and certainly contradict- 
ed by the testimony of four of the five senses, it is 
impossible to “ solve the difficulty” pressed upon us 
by the want of any attempt to elucidate the doc- 
trine, or to lessen the perplexity which must have 
embarrassed the minds of the Apostles, except 
“by acknowledging that” the exposition suggested 
by our Lord, when he said, “ the words that I speak 
unto you are spirit, and they are life,” is the only 
true one, and that the phrases eating his flesh and 
drinking his blood are not to be understood of “a 
real manducation of his body,” but of a spiritual 
union with him by means of a living faith. 

The author proceeds: “In order to condense 
and sum up the arguments which I have hitherto 
brought in favour of the Catholic dogma, I will 
propose a very simple hypothesis, and deduce 
them all from its solution.” That is to say, he in- 
tends to state a hypothesis, which is to be very’ 
simple; to solve it, which implies that, notwith- 
standing its great simplicity, it contains some 
difficulty which must be removed; and this be- 
ing done, the arguments hitherto alleged will be 
condensed and summed up. Although I freely 
confess myself at a loss to comprehend the full 
meaning of all this, yet, as it is evident that he 
means to do something, which, if done, would 
make all his previous labour unnecessary, I can- 
not but express my regret that he should not have 
solved this very simple hypothesis and made his 
_ deductions therefrom before, as it seems really 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 4] 


unkind, with such a purpose and ability, to have 
given his hearers and readers so much useless 
trouble, as a proper examination of the preceding 
part of his work demands. 

He then, with great truth and beauty, deline- 
ates our Saviour’s character as independent, and, 
at the same time, humble; as bold, yet gentle; firm, 
yet meek; exhibiting to all successive teachers 
the most perfect pattern for imitation. This de- 
lineation he brings to bear on the Protestant ex- 
position of his discourse in John, vi., in order to 
show that such an exposition is utterly at vari- 
ance with this character. As the author’s repre- 
sentation either imbodies part of what he had be- 
fore said, or assumes what he cannot prove, it 
might be passed over. But for the sake of gen- 
eral readers, who cannot be expected to examine 
minutely into the correctness of all his statements, 
I feel compelled to make one or two remarks. 
“ The Protestant” is represented as supposing the 
Saviour “ to undertake to expound one of his most 
beautiful and consoling doctrines to a crowd of 
ardent and enthusiastic hearers, who had just be- 
fore followed him into the wilderness, and fasted 
three days in order to listen to his instructions.”— 
P.134. Now all this is a figment of the author's 
imagination. ‘The Protestant supposes no such 
thing. It is the learned doctor who confounds two 
distinct facts; namely, the feeding mentioned in 
Matt., xv., 32-38, and Mark, viii., 2-9, of the four 
thousand, of whom it is said, that they had been 

D2 


42 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


“with Jesus three days, and had nothing to eat,” 
with the feeding of “ five thousand men, besides 
women and children” (making, in all probability, 
nearly as many more), narrated in Matt., xiv., 
16-21, and John, vi., 5-13, which miracle had 
been performed some time before. Those were 
not the religious men who had come from far, had 
fasted three days, and were likely to faint by the 
way if dismissed. And it is extraordinary that 
such a mistake should appear in a “ theological 
course of lectures several times delivered in the 
English college at Rome,” and, in order to “do 
ample justice to the line of argument pursued,” 
not only repeatedly delivered, but published, and, 
of course, revised and prepared for the press. A 
careful perusal of this very chapter might have 
pointed out this mistake ; for John, vi., 22-29, tells 
us, that “the people came to Capernaum, seeking 
for Jesus the day following” the miraculous feeding: 
consequently, they had enjoyed a good meal the 
day before the discourse was addressed to them. 
If they were the “ ardent and enthusiastic hearers” 
which it is all-important to the argument to rep- 
resent them, how is it that “the model of all meek- 
ness, condescension, and sweetness” opens his dis- 
course to them with a charge of selfishness and 
irreligious indifference, introduced, too, with a 
strong asseveration? “ Verily, verily I say unto 
you, ye seek me because ye did eat of the loaves, 
and were filled.” Does he ever begin to address 
well-disposed hearers in such language as this? 


. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 43 


How is it that these enthusiastic admirers of Je- 
sus, hanging as it were upon his lips, demand a 
sign, and tell him that Moses wrought a miracle 
of long continuance in giving their fathers the 
manna? Is this the way of enthusiastic admi- 
rers? How is it that he who “needed not that 
any should testify, for he knew what was in 
man,’* solemnly declared to these ardent and en- 
thusiastic hearers, “I say unto you that ye have 
seen me and believe not?” verse 37. How is it 
that he plainly enough intimates to them that they 
were not under the Father’s influence? verses 44, 
45. How is it that these “docile disciples” mur- 
mured at him because he said “I am the bread 
that came down from heaven?” verse 41. If such 
is the author’s hypothesis, it is, with all its sup- 
posed simplicity, encumbered by difficulties which 
neither he nor any other ingenious solver of 
doubts can expound. The truth is, that he has 
entirely misapprehended the character of these 
men. He has confounded them with others who 
appear to have heen of very different disposition, 
by identifying two distinct and independent facts ; 
and when he says that “one word of explanation 
would have saved them from their apostacy,” he 
asserts what he cannot know, and what is utterly 
irreconcilable with the facts of the case. His ar- 
gument is wholly founded in error. Had he prop- 
erly investigated and reflected on these points, he 
might have spared himself and his readers the 
*: Johny, ii: 25. 


44 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


questions, whether “this conduct of Jesus could 
win the affections of the infidel?” Whether “such 
conduct is a model for imitation?” Whether 
“any Protestant bishop would instruct his clergy- 
men to act thus in reference to children who 
should misunderstand their catechism?” p. 136. 
All this seems intended ad captandum. The 
thoughtful examiner must feel that it assumes the 
thing to be proved. 

And so also does Mr. Conrriper, in the quo- 
tation from his “ Aids to Reflection,” with which 
Dr. Wiseman closes his lecture. “After which 
time many of (Christ’s) disciples, who had been 
eyewitnesses of his mighty miracles, who had 
heard the sublime morality of his Sermon on 
the Mount, had glorified God for the wisdom 
which they had heard, and had been prepared 
to acknowledge the Christ, went back and walk- 
ed no more with him! What every parent, ev- 
ery humane preceptor would do when a child 
had misunderstood a metaphor or epilogue in a 
literal sense, we all know. But the meek and 
merciful Jesus suffered many of his disciples to 
fall off from eternal life, when to retain them he 
had only to say, Oh, ye simple ones, why are ye 
offended? my words, indeed, sound strange; but I 
mean no more than what you have often and often 
heard from me before with delight and entire 
acquiescence! Credat Judeus: nonego.” The 
learned and profound author assumes, respecting 
these disciples, what is not susceptible of proof. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 45 


How does he know that they “ had heard the sub- 
lime morality of the Sermon on the Mount, had 
glorified God for its wisdom, and been prepared 
to acknowledge the Christ ?”. How does he know 
that they would have been so easily retained? 
How does he know that these disciples were not 
merely external hangers-on to the supposed Mes- 
siah, from whom they had hoped to receive hon- 
ours and dignities in his secular kingdom? How 
does he know that they were not men filled with 
the spirit of this world, without any taste for an 
inward union in sentiment, affection, and whole 
character with the pure and holy one whom they 
professed to regard as their master? To assume 
all that he says, merely because the persons in 
question are called disciples, is too large a de- 
mand to be readily complied with by those who 
bear in mind that Judas was a disciple, and a 
chosen apostle too, and that yet “the meek and 
merciful Jesus” himself does not scruple to call 
him “a devil.” In fact, with all due, and, there- 
fore, with very great respect for the philosophic 
thinker and poet, I am constrained to be of the 
opinion that, in this representation, the force of 
his eloquence and imagination predominates over 
that of his logic. 

The view taken of the character of these men 
by Sr. Aveustin andCurysosrom is much more 
in accordance with the real facts. “They were 
far away from the bread from heaven ; neither 
did they know what hungering for it meant. They 


46 EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 


had the jaws of the heart languid ; with open ears, 
they were nevertheless deaf; they were seeing, 
and yet they remained blind. For that bread re- 
quires the hunger of the inner man.” Such is the 
representation of the deeply religious African 
bishop.* The golden-mouthed patriarch of Con- 
stafitinople also remarks, with great truth, that 
“the obscurity of what is said excites the atten- 
tion of the hearer;’ and hence he infers most 
correctly, that this ought not to give offence, but 
rather to lead to inquiry. “But now they go 
away. For if they had believed him to be the 
prophet, they would necessarily have believed 
his declarations ; so that the stumbling-block lay 
in their folly, and not in the obscurity of what 
was said.”t+ And afterward he contrasts the hum- 
ble fidelity of true disciples with the querulous 
disposition of these multitudes, who exclaim, this 
is a harsh doctrine, and consequently depart from 
him. 

As might be supposed, the author proceeds to 
show “ how beautifully the Catholic interpretation 
suits the well-known character of Jesus.” As the 
whole is nothing but a graphical description of a 


* Isti a pane de ccelo longe erant, nec eum esurire noverant. Fau- 
ces cordis languidas habebant ; auribus apertis surdi erant ; videbant, 
et ceecistabant. Panis quippe iste interioris hominis querit esuriem. 
In Joan., Tract. xxvi., Opera, tom. iii., p. 357. 

t “Qore tig éxétvwv avd.ag TO oKavdador Hv, dv Tie atopiac TOV 
Acyouévwv. In Joan., Hom. xlvi., Al. xlv., Opera, edit. Bened. Ve- 
net., 1741, tom. viii., p. 271. 


EXAMINATION OF DR. WISEMAN’S VIEW. 4] 


hypothetical case, any review of it is wholly un- 
necessary 

The last subject proposed for examination re- | 
lates to “ the different arguments brought by Prot- 
estants to prove that our Lord’s discourse cannot 
be referred to the eucharist.” These will be con- 
sidered in a subsequent part of this Essay, to the 
subject of which they most properly belong. 


PARP add 


ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF THE 
DISCOURSE. 


Havine sufficiently examined most of the lead- 
ing arguments intended to support Dr. Wiseman’s 
view of this discourse of our Lord, I proceed to 
consider its general scope and meaning. 

I have already stated the circumstances that 
gave occasion to the discourse, and the wonder 
expressed by the multitude on finding Jesus at Ca- 
pernaum. Discerning their real character, he ac- 
cuses them of unworthy and selfish motives, and 
exhorts them to seek earnestly the spiritual and 
everlasting food which could be imparted only 
by himself, whose authority God had indubita- 
bly attested. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, ye 
seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but be- 
cause ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. 
Work not for the meat which perisheth, but for 
that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, 
which the Son of Man will give unto you; for 
him hath God the Father sealed,” verses 26, 27. 
The reader cannot fail to observe that the figure 
selected by our Lord whereby to convey his ex- 
hortation is taken from the food miraculously 
supplied on the preceding day. This is agreea- 


le to his usual manner. We have a striking 


ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION, ETC. 49 


illustration of this in his conversation with the 
Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, whom he had 
asked for a drink, and to whom he immediately 
after recommends the blessings of the Spirit un- 
der the figure of living or running water.* An- 
other, equally strong, may be found in his illustra- 
tion of the deplorable céndition of the Jews of his 
day, under the idea of an evil spirit taking his 
seven companions, and returning with vastly in- 
creased force to the residence from which he had 
been expelled. This illustration is doubtless sug- 
gested by his having just before relieved a blind 
and dumb demoniac, and vindicated himself from 
the calumnious charge of his virulent opposers.f 
And, as he seizes on late or passing events to sup- 
ply suitable figures, so does he occasionally em- 
ploy the very language of his hearers to convey 
his own thoughts, the manner and tone giving 
them perspicuity, impression, and vitality. 
Attention to our Lord’s usage in these respects 
may throw light on some parts of this discourse. 
When his hearers, in evident allusion to his words, 
inquire of him, “ What must we do that we may 
work the works of God ?” he immediately replies, 
“This is the work of God, that ye believe on him 
whom he hath sent,” verses 28,29. The great 
work, the work required by God and acceptable 
to him, the work which is the true principle and 


« John iv., 10, 14. + Matt, xii, 43-45; 22, seq, 
t See John, ix., 40, 41; and compare Luke, xx., 16, with Matt 


EX alt 
E 


50 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


germ, as it were, of all other works, is a right 
faith in Christ. This is the introductory proposi- 
tion laid down by him in this important discourse. 
It is first stated in figurative language, and then 
in literal. And it is never lost sight of; it is re- 
peated over and over again, with the same change 
of expression. Thus, he promises blessings to the 
believer when he says of him in figure, “he that 
cometh to me shall never hunger,” and adds, in 
proper terms, “he that believeth on me shall nev- 
er thirst,” verse 35; meaning, shall be abun- 
dantly supplied with the Spirit.* Thus he says 
of the believer, using the same figure, “ him that 
cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out,” verse 
37; and again, without a figure, that “every one 
that believeth on him he will raise up at the last 
day,” verse 40; and again, with the same figure, 
that the Father’s influence is necessary to pro- 
duce this faith, “no man can come to me except 
the Father which hath sent me draw him,” verse 
44; and that the attentive and docile are divinely 
taught and do so believe, “ they shall be all taught 
of God: every one, therefore, that hath heard and 
learned of the Father cometh unto me,” verse 45; 
and, once more, solemnly pledges the full blessings 
of the Gospel to all such: “ Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting 
life,” verse 47. It is essentially important to re- 
gard this as the main principle advanced and 
urged. 


* Compare iv., 13, 14; vii., 37, 38 


THE DISCOURSE. 51 


In what manner, now, do these Jews receive 
our Lord’s doctrine respecting this “work of 
God,” that is faith? Do they show themselves, ac- 
cording to Mr. Coleridge’s representation of their 
character, as disposed to glorify God for the wis- 
dom which they had heard, and prepared to ac- 
knowledge, “ this is indeed the Christ?” Do they 
manifest the docile temper of the “child,” to whom 
he compares them? Do they drink in his words 
with delight, as we might expect such “ardent 
and enthusiastic hearers,” as Dr. Wiseman repre- 
sents them, would do? On the contrary, although 
they had seen him perform the most amazing mir- 
acle, by which their own wants had been abun- 
dantly supplied,* like their perverse and faithless 
ancestors in the desert, they disregard it, and de- 
mand another, wishing, perhaps, for a continual 
supply, such as that afforded to their fathers by 
the manna, and setting the miracle of Moses in 
contradistinction to that of Christ. “They said, 
therefore, unto him, What sign showest thou, then, 
that we may see, and believe thee? what dost 
thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the 
desert, as it is written, he gave them bread from 
heaven to eat,” verses 30, 31. Perhaps, too, they 
meant to imply, that if Jesus were the true Mes- 

* Lucke’s supposition, that those who required a miracle were not 
present at the miraculous feeding the day before, and had only heard 
of it, and seem to have doubted it, is wholly at variance with proba- 
bility, and disproved by the circumstances of the occasion. See his 


Commentar tiber die Schriften des Evangelisten Johannis, vol. ii, 
p. 176. 


52 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


siah, he ought, like his predecessor, to cause man- 
na to be rained from heaven. The passage re- 
ferred to is Ps. Ixxviii., 24, 25, where the Hebrew 
has nw 313 corn (food) of heaven, Orvax Ond 
bread of mighty ones (angels), and the Septuagint, 
dptov dvpavov EdwKEY avTOIC: ApToV ayyéAwY EpayeVv 
avOpwro¢: he gave them bread of heaven; bread 
of angels man did eat. The words used in the 
Gospel, éx tov dvpavov, are susceptible of the same 
sense, as the substantive with the preposition is 
sometimes employed instead of the adjective. 
Thus, for instance, in Luke, xi., 13, we have 
6 matip 6 && évpavov, for heavenly Father, and in 
2 Cor., v., 2, 76 duxnripiov judy 76 8 dvpavod, for 
heavenly habitation. But although the idea of 
heavenly food, very excellent and miraculous in 
character, is of course conveyed, the words seem 
to be chosen in order to express also the source 
from which Christ himself, the true bread, the liv- 
ing antitype of the manna, came; and the lan- 
guage in Exod., xvi., 4, both in the Hebrew and 
Septuagint, is similar: “I will rain for you bread 
from heaven,” Tv 1D, dptove éK Tov dvpavod. 
The 6 xatabairvwy, in verse 33, should be translated 
in connexion with dptoc, the bread which cometh 
down, and so the hearers understood it, for they 
immediately ask for such bread, verse 34. The 
present, in verses 33 and 50, expresses the inherent 
character of this food; it is heavenly, and from 
heaven it always comes. When our Lord speaks 
of himself as having come from heaven, St. John 


THE DISCOURSE. 53 


emplovs the aorist, kata6dc. See verses 41, 51 
with which compare xata6é6nxa in verses 38, 42. 

To this demand of the Jews, most unreasona- 
ble in itself, and clearly indicative of want of right 
perception and feeling, our Lord replies with 
earnestness, that the true bread from heaven was 
not given by Moses, but by his own Father, that 
it is himself, the manna being only a material 
symbol and figure of the spiritual reality, and that 
this is intended, not like the ancient miraculously 
communicated food, to assist in sustaining the 
present life of a few, but to afford eternal life to 
the whole world. Having no internal character 
adapted to a perception of his meaning, and dwell- 
ing on the gross idea of corporeal food to be im- 
parted daily by their Messiah, whereby present 
life should be sustained without toil, they exciaim, 
“ Lord, always give us this bread,” verses 32-34. 
He immediately corrects their sensual error by de- 
claring that the bread just spoken of is himself, add- 
ing also a promise to every one that believeth on 
him, verse 35. Then he repeats what he had be- 
fore plainly implied, that, although they had seen 
him in his character as a divine teacher, and had 
been eyewitnesses of his miracles,* yet they still 
remained unbelieving, verse 36; a statement quite 
irreconcilable with the representation of their 
character which has been already referred to. 
He proceeds to state an important truth, to which 


* This, though not asserted, is evidently implied. Compare sim 
ilar language in Matt., xxiii, 39: ‘“‘ Ye shal] not see me henceforth.” 


“2 


54 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


afterward also he calls their attention (verses 44, 
45), namely, that it is only through the Father’s 
influence that any are enabled truly to believe in 
him, thereby intimating the danger of forfeiting 
by prejudice and passion all reasonable expecta- 
ticn of securing it, verse 37. Now he assumes 
the prerogatives of the divine Messiah, and affirms 
that he will not reject the believer, but will raise 
him up at the last day, and this in accordance 
with the will of the Father, to accomplish which 
he came down from heaven, verses 388—40. Were 
these statements of Christ received with the docil- 
ity of children, to say nothing of the ardour of en- 
thusiastic disciples? The next verses inform us that 
they “murmured at him,” and were not prepared 
to admit his Messiahship. “Is not this Jesus, the 
son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? 
How is it, then, that he saith, I came down from 
heaven ?” (verses 41,42). No wonder that the di- 
vine teacher, after checking their murmurs, in- 
sists on the necessity of the Father’s grace, and 
of docility in the subject. ‘No one can believe 
in me except the Father draw him; all such are 
taught by him, and are diligent and docile pupils, 
instructed by the invisible, yet ever-present and 
influencing God.’ Verses 43-46. 

The assertion made in the former part of verse 
44 is simply this, that no one can believe in Christ 
without the influence of the Father, and the next 
verse shows that such effective influence is im- 
parted to those only who attend and learn. ‘Ed. 


THE DISCOURSE. 55 


kvoy by no means implies an irresistible oper- 
ation. The use of words, which in their own 
nature denote force, merely in a moral and lim- 
ited sense adapted to the character of the object 
acted on, is very common in Scripture. Thus, 
we have avayxdgw and Bidcowac employed in the 
sense of inducing, urging, pressing, where no sen- 
sible expositor would think of any stronger mean- 
ing; as in Matt., xiv., 22; Mark, vi, 45; Luke, 
xiv., 23; Acts, xxviii., 19; Matt., xi, 12; Luke, 
xvi. 16. And so éAntw, which with @Acw often 
conveys the idea of dragging, is here used of a 
moral influence, which may be resisted and coun- 
teracted. Compare xi., 32, which undoubtedly 
expresses the thought, that the Gospel system of 
Christ crucified would attract multitudes. See, 
also, James i., 14, where éeAxouevoe is used of a 
person being drawn away by sinful passion, irre- 
sistibility being out of the question. And, lastly, 
compare the use of &Axcvoav pe, in Cant.,i., 4, (8), 
immediately followed by é7iow cov—dpapodyey, let 
them draw me, we will run after them. 

Here I must be allowed to interrupt the general 
current of the discourse, by calling the attention 
of the reader to the 37th verse: “ All that the 
Father giveth me, shall (will) come to me; and 
him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” 
The reason why such shall not be rejected im- 
mediately follows; itis the Father’s will, to accom- 
plish which Christ came down from Heaven, 38- 
40. Notwithstanding the use of the neuter 7a 


56 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


persons are certainly meant, as is proved by the 
nature of the subject, and the masculine Tov épyo- 
pevov that follows. This usage is not uncommon 
with St. John, and is found also in other writers. 
Thus, we have in i., 12, ta td and 6c idvoz, nearly, 
if not quite, synonymous; in XVii., 2, iva nav 6 
dédwxac abv7@, OWon avtoi¢; and in 1 John, v., 4, 5, 
TaVv TO yEeyevynuevov EK TOV QEov VIKA TOY KOGLOY, 
is followed by ti¢ éoriv 6 vinGy Tov Kéopory é pH 6 
motevwy. Virgil also employs the neuter to des- 
ignate persons: 
“Et quidquid tecum invalidum metuensque pericli est, 
Delige, et his habeant terris, sine, menia fessi.” 
Aineid, V., 716, 717. 

When our Lord says, “all that the Father giv- 
eth me will come to me,’ he means to teach us, 
that those who truly believe on him are given 
him by the Father, that is, are led to believe by 
the Father’s influence. It may not be unworthy 
of remark, that d/dwot is present. Compare verse 
32. Allis the Father’s gift. He impresses this 
consideration, implying, of course, the danger of 
provoking the Father to withhold it. The perfect 
in verse 39 expresses the accomplishment of be- 
lief by the Father’s influence ; as if he had said 
“This is the Father’s will, that all who have be- 
come true believers through his influence should 
be raised to life.” With this view of the much 
litigated words, “the Father giveth,” the next 
verse coincides, the phrases, seeing the Son and 
believing on him, being substituted for them, and 


THE DISCOURSE. 57 


expressing, also, the necessity of using all suitable 
means to acquire the truth. Compare verse 36, 
which is addressed to such as did not believe, al- 
though they had seen him. The idea is yet more 
clearly developed in verses 44, 45, which insist on 
the necessity of the Father’s influence and of our 
docility. He that heareth and learneth of the 
Father is substituted for whom the Father giveth. 

A comparison of other places in this Gospel, 
where the same or similar language occurs, is al- 
together favourable to this view. Thus, in x., 29, 
“the Father who gave them to me,” that is, ‘ who 
so influenced them by his grace as to induce them 
to believe on me, and thus to become mine.’ See, 
also, the texts in the 17th chapter, which are all 
susceptible of a clear exposition in the same way, 
verses 2, 6, 9, 11 (if Ove be the true reading, which 
is better supported by internal evidence than ex- 
ternal), 12, 24. The same thought occurs, also, 
in vi., 65, although the form of expression is some- 
what varied: “‘ No one can come to me except it 
be given him of my Father ;” in other words, ‘to 
become mine by a true faith requires the gracious 
influence of the Father.’ Compare the language 
of xix., 11: “ Thou couldst have no power against 
me, except it were given thee from above,” that 
is, ‘thou canst only act under divine permission.” 
Also, iil., 27, “ A man can receive nothing, except 
it were given him from Heaven.” 

If it should be said that, inasmuch as coming 
to Christ is identical with believing on him, the 


58 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


view now given makes our Lord, in verse 37, utter 
the truism, ‘ All that the Father, by his grace, in- 
duces to believe on me will believe on me,’ the 
answer is, that the first clause need not, in all 
cases, comprehend all that the next asserts. The 
phrase, “giveth to me,” may occasionally bear a 
more limited sense, equivalent to ‘ properly influ- 
ences for me,’ while at others it includes the ef- 
fect of such influence, namely, right faith. Such 
limitations of the ordinary meaning of a word, or, 
on the other hand, some accession to it, is by no 
means of unfrequent occurrence in Scripture. 

I will only add, that a careful attention to the 
wide range of meaning allowed by Hebrew usage 
to the word give will tend not a little to remove 
any difficulty which the reader may feel in the 
statements here made. 

The divine teacher now resumes the leading 
topic of his discourse, which he introduces with 
the strongest asseveration, verse 47. There is a 
close connexion between this verse and the pre- 
ceding. The great object of faith is he who, “ be- 
ing in the bosom of the Father” (i., 18), and hav- 
ing seen him and been most intimately associated 
with him, and having also been sent by him from 
heaven with the fullest authority and power, is 
consequently able to give eternal life. He is the 
food that imparts and sustains life; the life which 
alone is worthy of the name (48). ‘ Your fathers 
ate the manna in the desert, yet they died ; how- 
ever extraordinary and excellent the food thus 


THE DISCOURSE. 5Y 


communicated, it was incompetent to perpetuate 
even their animal life; whereas the antitype of 
the manna, the spiritual food which has no asso- 
ciation with earth, but descends from its own 
heaven, imparts and preserves a life which is be- 
yond the influence of death, verses 49, 50. Iam 
that life-giving, life-sustaining, and never-failing 
food, having come down from heaven ;’ verse 51, 
former part. The participle “diving” in this 
place does undoubtedly convey the idea of ever- 
lasting, indestructible, and heavenly, in opposition 
to what is temporary, decaying, and earthly. 
Permanency, possessing the principle of life, is its 
usual meaning. Still, as it is undeniable that our 
Lord speaks of himself as the giver and sustainer 
of spiritual life (verses 33, 35, 50), it is best to 
take the word in its most comprehensive sense. 
‘O éx Tov dvpavov Kkatabdc, may refer to éy® or to 
6apto¢. Ihave endeavoured to adapt the transla- 
tion to the grammatical ambiguity of the original. 
The meaning of the whole clause will remain the 
same. 

I come now to that portion of our Saviour’s dis- 
course which requires the most careful examina- 
tion. After telling his hearers that the food of 
which he has been speaking is himself, he pro- 
ceeds to say, more particularly in the latter part 
of verse 51, that it is his flesh, which he will give 
for the life of the world. A declaration seem- 
_ ingly so extraordinary, and to them unintelligible, 
became the occasion of excitement and disputa- 


60 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


tion; and, attaching no other meaning to his words 
than a carnal and literal one, such as their gross 
views of the supply of bodily food which the Mes- 
siah was to furnish would naturally suggest, they 
speak of it contemptuously, and as a palpable im- 
possibility : “ How can this man give us his flesh 
to eat?” verses 51,52. The Master enjoins the 
necessity of their doing what they regarded as 
absurd and impracticable, in order to obtain spir- 
itual life; he enjoins it with a strong asseveration, 
with particularity of expression, employing the 
words “ drink the blood” as well as “eat the flesh 
of the Son of Man.” To those who so do, he 
promises a joyful resurrection ; he speaks of this. 
food and drink as the best and truest; of the one 
who uses it as intimately united with him, as par- 
taking of life by* him as he does by* the Father ; 
and concludes by characterizing it as having 
come down from heaven, and by contrasting its 
effects in conveying spiritual and everlasting life 
with those of the manna, on which their deceased 
ancestors had lived for a time in the desert, verses 
53-58. What means he by this eating his flesh 
and drinking his blood ? 

* The usual meaning of dcd@ with an accusative is, on account of, 
with a genitive by. (See, for an instance of each usage, Heb., ii., 10.) 
Still it is acknowledged by the best grammarians, that in the New 
Testament dvd is sometimes (though very seldom) used with the ac 
cusative in the sense of means ; cause, object,and means being so in 
timately allied. See Winer’s Grammatik N. T., p. 324, 339. The 
above translation is therefore sanctioned by occasional usage, and is 


to be preferred, because it produces a meaning best adapted to the 
context and subject. 


- 


THE DISCOURSE. 61 


The expression, “ And, moreover,* the bread 
which I will give is my flesh, which I will give 
for the life of the world,” cannot be explained 
merely of Christ’s devoting himself, consecrating 
his whole earthly life to man’s welfare. The 
word flesh is never used in this sense, neither can 
it be said, in accordance with it, “the bread which 
i will give is my flesh, which I will give.” This 
denotes a future act, whereas the consecration 
referred to had been already made in a good de- 
gree, and was still in progress. 

Neither is it correct to say, that having spoken 
in the preceding part of his discourse simply of his 
doctrine, our Lord now introduces another distinct 
and additional idea, representing his death as what 
was to give life unto the world. For what is this 
sentiment but a part of his doctrine, a very prom- 
inent and important part, and implied in what he 
had already said? Such a distinction and sup- 
posed transition are without evidence. 

Are we, then, to explain this part of the dis- 
course solely or principally in reference to the 
eucharist, and to interpret the phrases “eat the 
flesh and drink the blood” in accordance with the 
doctrine of transubstantiation, or in reference to 
the symbols of bread and wine representing the 
real body and blood of the Redeemer? There are 
difficulties in this view, some of which cannot be re- 
moved, and of which it is necessary to take notice. 

1. It might be said, that the word here used is 


* T have employed these words to convey the force of kai—de. 


F 


— 


62 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


flesh, while body is always employed elsewhere, 
as in the words of the institution as given by the 
evangelists and St. Paul.* If our Lord intended 
here a particular reference to the eucharistic body 
or symbol, it would seem reasonable to expect him 
to have used the same word on both occasions. 
To this it may be replied, that such arguments are 
not of much weight, because, as either word is 
well adapted to express the thought intended, 
the choice of either may have been rather circum- 
stantial than necessary. This is true; and yet 
the reader must feel that if the eucharistic food be 
meant, the sense would have been clearer if the 
word body had been employed as elsewhere. 

2. On this theory it is not easy to explain the 
language, “I will give,” in verse 51. This can- 
not be interpreted of the eucharist, for Christ’s 
flesh or body was not then given. The words of 
the institution, “ Which is given—which is shed,’ + 
have, indeed, been alleged to prove that the giving 
and the shedding, that is, the offering made by 
Christ when he gave himseif to be crucified, and 
allowed his blood to be poured out as a sacrifice 
and libation for human guilt, was made at that 
time and in that very act. But this is plainly at 
variance with repeated declarations of the Apos- 
tles, that the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
was made once for all by his death upon the cross. 

* Matt., xxvi,26. Mark, xiv.,22. Luke, xxii.,19. 1Cor., xi, 24. 

+ Luke, xxii., 19, 20. 


t See, among other places, Heb., vii., 27; ix., 25-28; x., 10, 12, 
14. 1 Pet., i., 24. 


4 


THE DISCOURSE. 63 


The use of the present 76 didéuevor, 76 éxyvvopuevor, 
To KA@wevov (1 Cor., xi., 24), is easily explained, 
as the Saviour represents before the eyes of his 
Apostles a symbol of what was so very soon to 
take place. Such language is very common. 
Thus we read, “ The hour is coming, and now is, 
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of 
God.”* Whether this be understood of a literal, 
or, more correctly, of a moral resurrection, does 
not affect its application to the case in hand. Of 
the same kind is our Lord’s language, “ The hour 
is come that the Son of Man should be glorified ;” 
“now is the judgment of this world.”t The prox- 
imity or certainty of what is stated is the ground 
of the usage. And on the same principle, what 
is still future is sometimes spoken of as past, as is 
often the case in prophecy. Thus, also, our Lord, 
in his last prayer before his passion, speaks as if 
his whole atoning work on earth were completed, 
as if he had already risen, and was going to his 
Father. The language is particularly worthy of 
notice: “I have finished the work which thou 
gavest me to do; and now [ am no more in the 
world: while | was with them in the world I kept 
them.”— When, therefore, our Lord employs the 
present in the eucnaristic institution, he does so, 
not because he means to teach us that his sacri- 
fice was then offered, not that his body was then 
given, his blood then shed; but because this was 
so soon to take place, that it is in his mind as if it 
* John, v., 25. f Xi, 24, al: } xvii, 4; 11,32 


64 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


were present, though, strictly speaking, it was 
only symbolized by the celebration. 

It is certain, then, that the words “I will give,” 
cannot be explained of the eucharist. They must 
be understood of Christ’s voluntary sacrifice on 
the cross, as the same verb is employed in other 
places. Thus, for instance, it is said, “ The Son 
of Man came to give his life a ransom for many _ 
—he gave himself a ransom for all—who gave 
himself for our sins—who gave himself for us.”* 
This is the only meaning that accords with usage 
cad harmonizes with the context. If, then, the 
ianguage of verse 51 is to be explained of some- 
thing different from the eucharist, it follows ne- 
cessarily that the eating and drinking afterward 
mentioned must also relate to something different, 
for the connexion is so intimate as to compel us 
to understand both of the same general topic. 

3. On the theory by which this passage is ex- 
pounded of the eucharist, it is not easy to explain 
the fact, that St. John, in his Gospel, gives no ac- 
count of the institution. It will, doubtless, be said, 
and for this very reason he introduces this dis- 
course, that he may impress its necessity. And 
even Bishop Beveriper, who does not understand 
this discourse as intended directly of the eucharist, 
expresses the opinion, “ That St. John, having re- 
corded words so very like to those in the institu- 
tion of that holy sacrament, did not think it neces- 


* Matt., xx., 28. Mark, x, 45; (4 ‘Tim:,.i1.,.6.:-Gal.; ., 4... Tit., 
ii., 14. 


THE DISCOURSE. 65 


sary to describe, as all the other evangelists did, 
the institution of his Last Supper.’* Stil it ap- 
pears unnatural to speak in direct reference to an 
institution which our Lord himself originated, and 
which, in this respect, is different from baptism, 
and to speak of its use as necessary in order to 
obtain Christian privileges, without taking any no- 
tice of its establishment. It is certain that those 
who derived their knowledge solely from this Gos- 
pel could not so have understood the discourse ; 
this is true, also, of the original hearers. And, on 
the other hand, if this part of our Lord’s discourse 
was intended to refer primarily to the eucharist, 
it is somewhat extraordinary that the other evan- 
gelists should have given their readers no account 
of it. The institution would so naturally have 
suggested the discourse, that it is not easy on this 
theory to explain the omission. 

4, Closely connected with this difficulty 1s an- 
other, which Dr. Wiseman “thinks the most fa- 
vourite reason given for not understanding this 
discourse of the eucharist,” namely, “that it was 
not yet instituted.”t And Suertock,{ as quoted by 
him, notes this as “the only objection he knows 
against so expounding” it. Itis surprising that the 


* Sermons, London, 1708, vol. v., p. 314. + Page 138. 

+ The author of the discourse from which Dr. Wiseman makes an 
extract is Dean SHERLOCK, not the bishop, who was his son. This 
is a mere inadvertence. In the same way, the Sacred Theory of the 
Earth, which was written by Dr. Tuomas Burnet, has often been 
ascribed to the bishop, whose Christian name was GILBERT, and 
sometimes printed as his. 

F 2 


66 ANALYSIS ANID EXPOSITION OF 


knowledge of so distinguished a divine should on 
this point have been so limited. We are told by 
the reverend author that “there are several an- 
swers to this” objection. They are given by Dr. 
Wiseman, with some original “remarks” and “il- 
lustrations.” 

Sherlock replies to the objection, that “ our Sav- 
iour said a great many things to the Jews in his 
sermons which neither they nor his own disciples 
could understand when they were spoken, though 
his disciples understood them after he was risen.” 
Dr. Wiseman illustrates this by reminding the 
reader “of the distinction between comprehending 
and understanding, the latter referring to the 
meaning of the words, the former to the nature of 
the doctrine.” That Christ’s flesh and blood were 
to be eaten and drunk the hearers could readily 
understand, although “ they could not comprehend 
how this was to be effected.”* 

This is certainly true, and the distinction is im- 
portant. It is in the highest degree reasonable 
that the understanding should give its full assent 
to the truth of a proposition, or acquiesce in the 
obligation of a precept, although it may not com- 
prehend the nature of the one nor the manner of 
complying with the other. One thing it perceives 
and knows, namely, that in the one case some 
truth is contained, in the other some act is enjoin- 
ed. This perception and knowledge are founded 
on the previously established authority of him 


* Page 139. 


THE DISCOURSE. | 67 


with whom the proposition or precept originates. 
On this principle, therefore, we should be justified 
in maintaining that there is sound mathematical 
truth in some proposition of Newton’s Principia, 
even if we could not comprehend its meaning. 
We merely confess our ignorance and acknowl- 
edge his authority. And thus, if it be sufficiently 
proved that, in the case under consideration, the 
thing intended is the eating and drinking in the 
eucharist, the bare fact that our Lord’s original 
hearers could not have comprehended the nature 
of the thing, and “how it was effected,” is not a 
valid objection. They could readily understand 
that something in reference to himself was to be 
done; and reason as well as faith required them 
not only to acquiesce in the proposition, but to re- 
solve to do the thing, and to wait patiently until 
they should be instructed in its nature and manner. 

The principle, then, on which the dean’s obser- 
vation is founded is not only the basis of sound 
and acceptable faith, but it is an essential element 
of reason, the highest degree of both being al- 
ways in perfect harmony. Our Saviour’s dis- 
courses contain frequent illustrations of it. When, 
however, Dr. Wiseman “ gives” as “ one, his con- 
versation with Nicodemus,” which, he says, “ took 
place before baptism was instituted, and yet the 
necessity of it is there declared,” adding that “no 
one has ever thought of denying that the regener- 
ation there mentioned referred to baptism, on the 
ground that this sacrament had not been institu- 


68 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


ted,”* he is singularly unfortunate in his selec- 
tion. He assumes what, beyond all doubt, he 
could not prove. Yet even if his assumption 
were allowed, the cases would not be relevant. 
I will not urge that the practice of baptizing pros- 
elytes to Judaism was then in general use. This 
might be questioned; although, on the theory 
which wholly denies: its use antecedent to the 
coming of John, it is difficult to account for the 
question of the delegation sent to him from Jeru- 
salem: “ Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not 
the Christ, nor Elias, neither the prophet ?”¢ The 
language seems to imply, that, had he avowed him- 
self to be any one of these personages, they would 
not have been surprised at his baptizing, and con- 
sequently implies, also, that they were familiar 
with the usage as a ceremony of initiation. Waiv- 
ing all this, however, it is a matter of fact that 
John, as the precursor of the Messiah, had been 
publicly baptizing, and that crowds had flocked 
to him from Judea and Jerusalem. The use of 
water, then, in admitting to discipleship in the 
doctrine of the prophetic Elias, must necessarily 
have been known to Nicodemus, and he could 
not have failed to apply the well-known fact as 
explanatory of our Lord’s language. But it is 
not necessary to take this view. It is in the high- 
est degree probable that Christ’s baptism was in 
use before the conversation held with Nicodemus. 
The first direct mention that is made of cur Lord’s 


* Page 140. } Jonn, L, 25. 


THE DISCOURSE. 69 


baptizing is, indeed, in the verse that follows the 
account of this interview ; but the apparently inci- 
dental manner in which the practice is introduced 
makes it extremely probable that he had already 
instituted, or, which is equivalent, sanctioned the 
rite: “ After these things came Jesus and his dis- 
ciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried 
with them and baptized.”—John, iii., 22: compare 
verse 26; 1v.,1. Those places show the prac- 
tice immediately or shortly after the interview 
with the Jewish ruler. Before it, Christ had pub- 
licly avowed himself to be the Messiah, by clear- 
ing his father’s house of profanation, by a sym- 
bolical prediction of his death and resurrection, 
by working miracles so remarkable, either in 
number or kind, or both (ii., 22; iii., 2), as to in- 
duce a member of the Sanhedrim to show him 
the respect of a visit, and to recognise him as a 
divine teacher. All this implies that he spent 
some time in the great capital, and must have 
elicited a considerable degree of public atten- 
tion. As an effect of his actions and instructions, 
“many believed on his name ;” and the proba- 
bility is in favour of the opinion, that such persons 
made the same public profession of their faith as 
those did who became his disciples after the in- 
terview ; in other words, that they received his 
baptism. When, therefore, Dr. Wiseman asserts 
that “the discourse in the sixth chapter of St. 
John stands in the same relation to the institution 
of the eucharist as the conference with Nicode- 


70 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


mus does to the institution of baptism,”* he makes 
a statement which is entirely gratuitous, and with- 
out even the shadow of a proof. 

Still, while the illustration of Wiseman must be 
rejected, the principle of Sherlock is freely admit- 
ted. Our Saviour’s precept might have a sub- 
sequent institution in view, and relate to some- 
thing hereafter to be done. Let us now examine 
if such is the fact. | 

On this supposition, it will be difficult to explain 
satisfactorily why our Lord did not openly and 
plainly announce his intention of instituting the 
eucharist, in which either his flesh and blood, or 
the symbols of them, should be eaten and drunk. 
It is true that, on the theory of transubstantiation, 
such a declaration would not have removed the 
harshness of the precept in the opinion of the hear- 
ers, but it would at least have given them a clear 
idea of his meaning. On the Protestant theory of 
the eucharist, it would at once have removed the 
whole difficulty. The strength of this considera- 
tion must, of course, be increased in the minds of 
those who, with Dr. Wiseman and Mr. Coleridge, 
have taken a favourable view of the docility and 
religious honesty of the party addressed, from 
whom it is not to be supposed that such informa- 
tion would be withheld. 

Farther, the general tenor of the discourse 
shows, that when our Lord urges on his hearers 
the duty and necessity of “eating his flesh and 

* Page 141. 


. THE DISCOURSE. 71 


drinking his blood, he means that the persons ad- 
dressed should themselves, without delay, do the 
thing required. It is evident that the whole dis- 
course preserves a proper unity of subject, and 
that verses 48-58 inclusive are indissolubly con- 
nected. Notwithstanding the several phrases em- 
ployed in verses 53-58, the subject required to be 
eaten is the same throughout. But the language 
in verse 58, “ This is that bread which came down 
from heaven: not as your fathers did eat the 
manna and are dead, he that eateth of this bread 
shall live forever,” necessarily refers us back to 
that of verses 31-33: “Our fathers did eat the 
manna, as it is written, he gave them bread from 
heaven to eat—verily, verily, I say unto you, my 
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven, 
for the bread of God is he that cometh down from 
heaven and giveth life unto the world ;” and both 
are most clearly connected with the very first di- 
rection, “labour (or work) for that meat which 
endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of 
Man shall give unto you,” verse 27. It is quite 
evident, then, that our Lord is not asseverating in 
his most solemn manner the necessity, in order to 
secure union with him and a glorious resurrec- 
tion, of obeying a law which was not to be plainly 
promulgated until a year after,* but is urging an 
immediate compliance with the command which 
introduces his discourse. 

5. The effects of obedience and disobedience, 


* Compare vi., 4, vii., 1, 2, and Matt., xxvi., 19, 26. 


72 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


as stated by Christ, do not harmonize with the in- 
terpretation which refers this passage principally 
or wholly* to the eucharist. “If any man eat of 
this bread he shall live forever—whoso eateth 
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, 
shall live forever, dwelleth in me and I in him, and 
I will raise him up at the last day. Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh and drink 
the blood of the Son of Man, ye have no life in 
you.” I do not attach much importance to the 
fact that all this is said absolutely. I am willing 
to grant that such language might be employed 
of what has been called “sacramental feeding,” 
while the condition that the eating and drinking 
be rightly and worthily done, that is, with suitable 
dispositions on the part of the communicant, is im- 
plied. Absolute declarations, when the subjects 
of them are in their very nature conditional, and 
also shown to be so by the analogy of God’s deal- 
ings, are often made in Scripture. But so solemn 
a warning, implying the most sericus threat and 
such glorious promises, are never represented in 
the New Testament as the result of neglecting or 


* | do not acquiesce in the inference as Dr. Wiseman has stated it: 
“precludes the possibility of any reference to the eucharist.” Neither 
do the divines he refers to maintain this. Indeed, the very language 
of Beveridge which he quotes shows the contrary. “It is not the 
sacramental, but spiritual eating his body and blood our Saviour here 
speaks of. I mean, our Saviour hath no particular reference in this place 
to the representatives of his body and blood in the sacrament, but 
only to the spiritual feeding upon him by faith, whether in or out of 
the sacrament.” It is not easy to defend the doctor’s candour and 
perspicacity both. 


THE DISCOURSE. 73 


vomplying with any one positive institution. Cer- 
tainly, this is so in reference to the other sacra- 
ment. He never read, “ He that is baptized shall 
be saved,” but “he that believeth and is baptized,” 
while we do read, “he that believeth not shall be 
damned,” and “ whosoever shall call upon the name 
of the Lord shall be saved ;”* and it is particularly 
worthy of notice, that when baptism is mentioned 
as saving, cleansing, forgiving, there is generally, 
if not always, some word or phrase added, ex- 
pressive of internal sanctification. Thus, when 
Ananias requires Saul to “arise and be baptized, 
and wash away his sins,” he adds, “ calling on the 
name of the Lord,” which implies the necessity 
of prayer as well as of outward profession.t And 
when St. Paul speaks of Christ “having purified 
his Church by the washing (or bath, Aovtp®) of 
water,” he immediately adds, “ through the word,’ { 
implying the efficacy of the “ truth’$ in producing 
the result. St. Peter, also, when he speaks of 
“baptism saving us,” is careful to guard against 
the error of attaching this important result to the 
outward act, and therefore explains it to be “not 
the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the an- 
swer of a good conscience towards God,” adding, 
also, “ by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”|| Here 
inward purity is presumed to exist along with the 
outward act, and Christ’s resurrection is repre- 


* Mark, xvi., 16. Acts, ii, 21. Rom.,x., 13. 

+ Acts, xxii., 16. Pais ph., V.,.27. § John, xvii, 17. 
}) Pet., iii,, 21, 7 

G 


> 


74 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


sented as the procuring cause ofthe blessing. And, 
lastly, when the apostle contrasts outward cir- 
cumcision in the flesh with that not made with 
hands, it is evident that with the external sign he 
conjoins the thing signified, “the putting off the 
body of flesh, the being buried along with Christ, 
and being raised with him to a new and holy life.” 
To suppose, therefore, that such “ exceeding great 
and precious promises” as those before us are an- 
nexed to the sacramental feeding, however explic- 
able such a representation might be with the ne- 
cessary condition implied, is not in harmony with 
the usage of the New Testament Scriptures. 

What, then, it may be asked, is the meaning of 
the words in question? I answer, the same as 
had already been conveyed by the phrases before 
employed ; namely, the duty and rewards of a 
living faith in the Redeemer, with the fuller and 
more distinct development, however, than had 
been before made of the atoning sacrifice which 
was to be effected by his death, and the necessity 
of this faith acting on it, in order to secure the 
pardon of sin, the mystical union of the believer 
with his Lord, and, by consequence, his attain- 
ment of present spiritual life, of future resurrec- 
tion, and of eternal happiness. The exercise of 
such a faith is what is meant by “eating the flesh 
and drinking the blood of the Son of Man,” by 
whatever means of grace it may act, whether 
they were in existence and operation at the time 
when the discourse was uttered, or were subse- 
quently developed or established. 


THE DISCOURSE. 75 


This view of our Lord’s meaning is drawn from 
the occasion and whole tenor of the discourse as 
already presented. He begins by urging faith; 
he replies to the querulous objections of his oppo- 
nents by inculcating faith; he proceeds by repeat- 
edly stating the necessity of the Father’s influ- 
ence to produce faith ; and, after he has finished 
his discourse, and corrected the gross error of 
some of his hearers, he introduces the same fun- 
damental principle of faith, as effected by the Fa- 
ther’s influence. “There are some of you that 
believe not; for Jesus knew from the beginning 
who they were that believed not; and he said, 
therefore said I unto you, that no man can come 
unto me, except it were given unto me of my Fa- 
ther,” verses 64, 65. And, moreover, to the 
question, “ Will ye also go away?” the honest, 
the truly “ardent and enthusiastic” Peter responds 
in his master’s own strain, “ We believe and are 
sure that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
God,” verse 69. The verbal difficulties which 
can set aside such an interpretation, sustained by 
the facts that gave occasion to the discourse, by 
its whole train and tenor, and by the leading idea 
pervading the mind of both teacher and disciple 
after it had been delivered, ought to be not only 
weighty, but overwhelming. 

The profound and universally-acknowledged 
“judicious” Hooker lays down a principle of in- 
terpretation, the truth of which is founded in the 
nature of the mind and the purpose of language: 


76 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


“T hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions 
of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construc- 
tion will stand, the farthest from the letter is com- 
monly the worst.”* Nothing can be more true. 
But let us not lose sight of the condition : “ where 
a literal construction will stand ;” that is, where 
it not only makes a good sense, but the sense 
best adapted to the scope of the author, most in 
harmony with his ordinary manner and the gen- 
eral object which he has in view. Now I deny 
that this is the case in the present instance. 
It is of little consequence to say that the sac- 
ramental exposition gives the plain and literal 
sense of the word. This does not prove it to be 
true: it only imposes on those who object to it 
the obligation of showing that the literal sense 
cannot be the correct one; which I conceive has 
often been done. The literal exposition through- 
out necessarily results in the doctrine of a real 
corporeal presence. If the flesh and the blood 
are both to be understood literally of the Sav- 
iour’s bodily substance, which is to be incorpora- 
ted with the body of the worshipper, his bodily 
substance must be present whether by con- or 
tran-substantiation. But it may not be amiss to 
remind the advocates of the most literal sense, 
that if they will be true to their principle, they 
must allow that the words cannot prove the real 
presence of anything else than the bodily sub- 
stance. I do not deny that where Christ’s body 
* Eccles. Polity, book v , 6 59 


THE DISCOURSE. Ti 


is, there also is his soul, and there his divinity in 
an especial manner; but this might be denied by 
one who, at the same time, justly claimed to be a 
most rigid adherent of the literal sense. Figure 
of some sort, and in some degree, must be admit- 
ted by all. Either the phrase “flesh and blood” 
is a synecdoche, a part for the whole; or itis a 
metaphor, the thing signified for the sign; or the 
whole clause, which speaks of eating the one and 
drinking the other, is tropical. It is idle to object 
to the view before given because it is figurative. 
No interpretation can be entirely literal. 

Sherlock objects, that if the expressions are to 
be explained “ of feeding on Christ by faith or be- 
lieving, his disciples could understand this no bet- 
ter than that which expounds it of the Lord’s Sup- 
per. It is plain they did not, and I know not how 
they could.. For to call bare believing in Christ, 
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, is so remote 
from all propriety of speaking, and so unknown in 
all languages, that to this day those who under- 
stand nothing more by it but believing in Christ 
are able to give no tolerable account of the reason 
of the expression.”* 

Dr. Wiseman asserts, that even if the phrase 
“to eat the Messiah” could mean “ to receive and 
embrace him, the expression to eat the flesh of the 
Messiah is totally different, and that the least de- 
parture from established phraseclogy plunges us 
in obscurity and nonsense.” 


= Paces ia.) * ¢ Page °C 


78 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


In reply to the last-mentioned writer, it is suffi- 
cient to say, that words and phrases often take 
their determinate meaning from the particular oc- 
casion and circumstances which give rise to their 
use, by which, also, their meaning is often modi- 
fied; so that all “obscurity” is thereby removed. 
Our author does himself recognise the principle 
here stated, and I am happy to confirm its correct- 
ness by his authority.“ Philology is not conduct- 
ed” merely “by taking the abstract meaning of 
words and applying them to any passage, but by 
studying them as used in peculiar circumstances.” 
—P. 127. The case before us proves the truth of 
this; for it is undeniable that some of the best 
critics and commentators, both of ancient and 
modern times, have agreed in giving to “the ex- 
pressions, to eat the flesh and drink the blood of 
the Messiah,” a meaning which Dr. Wiseman says 
implies a “departure from established phraseolo- 
gy,” without either “obscurity” or “nonsense.” 
There is, in truth, neither nonsense in the meaning, 
nor necessary obscurity in the language which 
conveys it. The bread to be eaten is expressly 
declared by our Saviour, in verse 51, to be his 
flesh. It is evident, therefore, that eating the 
bread, in verses 48, 50, 51, is identical with eating 
the flesh. Whatever the one means the other 
must also mean. The language, “Except ye eat,” 
&c., in verses 53-56, is suggested by that in which 
the objection is couched, in verse 52, “ How can 
this man give us his flesh to eat?” to which the 


THE DISCOURSE. 79 


words “ drink the blood” are added simply to par- 
ticularize, so as to denote a thorough partaking, 
and the whole is an amplification of the thought 
before expressed, in verses 50, 51, namely, the 
“eating of the bread that cometh down from heav- 
en.” And in verses 56, 57, 58, the phrases, “ eat- 
eth my flesh and drinketh my blood—eateth me— 
eateth of this bread,” are manifestly identical in 
meaning. The amplification may be illustrated 
by Ephes., v., 30, where the apostle, after stating 
of true Christians, that they “are members of 
Christ’s body,” immediately adds, in order to show 
more particularly the intimacy of the union intend- 
ed, “ of his flesh and of his bones.” (Compare the 
language of the Israelites to David: “We are thy 
bone and thy flesh.”*) To suppose that he intends 
to denote a personal identity thereby would be a 
monstrous extravagance, unsupported by Scrip- 
ture, and directly tending to a species of Pantheism; 
and, moreover, contrary to the comparison taken 
from the marriage relation which gives occasion 
to the language. 

It is quite superfluous to show, not only that our 
Lord frequently draws his figures from what has 
just occurred or is passing at the time, but, also, 
that he often clothes his thoughts in language taken 
from the lips of his hearers, employing their very 
words in a sense different from that intended by 
them. See John, ix., 40,41. Matt., xii., 48, 49; 
¥xill., 31, 32; and compare Ezek., xvi., 45. In 


+ 2 Sam, ‘vi, i 


80 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


fact, such a modification of the meaning of words 
is common with all speakers, and particularly in 
colloquial and popular discourse; and it rarely 
gives any difficulty to the honest, candid hearer. 
I am not aware that an instance of the word 7jpépa, 
in the metonymical sense of judgment in which it is 
used in 1 Cor.,iv., 3, has ever been adduced from 
any Greek writer; and yet no one is in danger of 
mistaking the sense, which is necessarily suggested 
by the context. It is neither a Cilicism nor a He- 
braism, but an elliptical manner of employing a 
word expressive of time to designate the action 
then to be done, the nature of the action having 
been already sufficiently brought before the read- 
er. On the same principle, we have in our Lord’s 
discourse an amplification of the idea which he had 
already plainly and repeatedly stated. If some 
of his hearers misunderstood him, the fault lay with 
themselves, and is not attributable to any neces- 
sary obscurity in the language. 

With regard to Dean Sherlock’s objection, 
which is represented as “certainly satisfactory,” 
the first remark to be made relates to a part of 
the language chosen to convey it. He speaks of 
“bare believing, nothing more than believing.” 
Whatever may have been his design in selecting 
these expressions, it is impossible to mistake their 
tendency. This, evidently, is to fill the reader’s 
raind with the impression that the sense objected to 
is inadequate to the dignity of the subject, too low 
and feeble for the solemnity of the manner and 


THE DISCOURSE. 81 


the force of the language. But if, more in accord- 
ance with the general representations of Scripture, 
we consider the faith thus enjoined, not as “ bare 
believing,” but as “believing with the heart unto 
righteousness,”* as the faith “ which worketh by 
love,’+ which “is the substance of things hoped for 
and the evidence of things not seen,’ } as that which, 
by its living and active energy, unites to the true 
and life-giving head, producing a spiritual union 
and blessed incorporation with him as members of 
his mystical body, and, consequently, bringing 
along with it the participation of Christ here and 
the full enjoyment of him hereafter; then it can- 
not be questioned, that we have a sense sufficient- 
ly elevated for any occasion and any allowable 
warmth of language. 

He says, moreover, that the expressions could 
have been understood of faith in Christ no better 
than of the Lord’s Supper. This is mere asser- 
tion. And it can by no means be admitted, as 
faith is the leading thought which pervades the 
whole previous part of the discourse, whereas not 
a syllable had been said of the Lord’s Supper. 
The former idea might and ought to have been 
the prominent one in their minds; the latter could 
not by any possibility have been conceived. We 
must not take up the expressions of eating and 
drinking as if they were isolated. We are com- 
pelled to examine them in connexion with and by 


* Rom., x., 10. + Gal., v., 6. t Heb., xi., 1. 


82 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


the aid of the context, and are therefore compelled 
to acknowledge, that while the idea of faith nat- 
urally suggests itself, that of sacramental eating 
in the Lord’s Supper must have been derived from 
subsequent instruction. 

But the advocates of the theory which interprets 
our Lord’s language of faith rather than of the 
Lord’s Supper, “are able to give no tolerable ac- 
count of the reason of the expression.” 

It is granted that the expressions are unusually 
strong, and that the figure is developed with ex- 
traordinary boldness. Atthe same time, it is con- 
tended that it is the same sort of figure as had all 
along been employed, and to which the occasion 
gave rise. The words imbodying the one thought 
are varied ; and this, as has already been said, be- 
cause our Lord adopts the very terms of his op- 
ponents, and because the general figure having 
been already repeatedly employed, these terms 
are an amplification well fitted to express the 
closeness of the union intended. The increased 
strength and boldness of the terms will appear 
natural to all who patiently attend to the circum- 
stances. They are also in analogy with other 
Scriptural representations, of which | shall adduce 
a single instance. St. Paul, delineating the in- 
ward working of the natural mind, when reason 
is acting on the subject of religious obligation, and 
the conscience is in some measure alive to a re- 
gard to it, while, at the same time, the grace of the 
Gospel is wanting, uses the language, “ I consent 


THE DISCOURSE. S3 


unto the law that it is good.”* This simply express- 
es acquiescence Inits excellence. But afterward, 
becoming more warmed with the subject, and de- 
siring to state as fully as possible the complete- 
ness of this acquiescence of reason and conscience, 
he employs a stronger term, “ovv7jdoua, I delight 
i, or, am pleased with, the law of God, after the 
inner man.”t The expressions, “eat the flesh and 
drink the blood of the Son of Man,” when consid- 
ered in relation to the language “ eat me,” are sim- 
ilar to the latter word of St. Paul in relation to the 
former. In each case, both expressions designate 
the same thing, the one being only more fervid 
and energetic than the other. 

It is hardly necessary to remark, that words 
denoting food and beverage, and freely partaking 
thereof, have in all ages and nations been employ- 
ed to signify an ardent attention to learning, a re- 
ception of doctrine, particularly when it engages 
the whole mind, and interests the affections. This 
is admitted on all hands, and Dr. Wiseman, among 
other writers, has given some very apposite quo- 
tations to this effect.{[ The reason of the figure 
is evident. As the food is taken into the sys- 
tem, combines with the substance, nourishes and 
strengthens it, and thus becomes a natural cause 
of its continued vitality ; so does the learning or 
the doctrine embraced influence the intellectual or 
moral character of the recipient. Hence he is 
commonly said to imbibe its excellence, to taste 


* Rom., vii., 16. + Verse 22 t Pages 60-63. 


&4 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


and enjoy its sweetness, to devour the truth with 
greediness, or to swallow error withavidity. Per- 
haps no people were more accustomed to an ex- 
treme use of this figure than the Hebrews. It 
occurs very often in the New Testament, and 
abounds inthe Old. Illustration may be unneces- 
sary, yet I willcite a few passages. “If any man 
hear my voice, I will sup with him and he with 
me:* [have fed you with milk, and not with meat :7 
I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey: I 
have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends, 
drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved: the 
Lord of Hosts shall make a feast of fat things, a 
feast of wines on the lees; of fat things full of mar- 
row.”’§ The same class of expressions is used to 
convey the idea of enjoying and delighting in any- 
thing. Thus, for instance, “Thy words were 
found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto 
me the joy and rejoicing of my heart.”|| Also, for 
a hearty reception in contradistinction to an un- 
willingness to see and admit the truth : “Thou son 
of man, be not thou rebellious like that rebellious 
house ; open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee. 
Fat that thou findest, ead this roll. So lopened my 
mouth, and he caused me to eat that roll; and he 
said unto me, son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and 
fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then 
did I eat it; andit was in my mouth as honey for 
sweetness.” Here the figure of eating is carriea 


* Rev., iii., 30 +4 Cor., i., 2. t Sol. Song, v., 1. 
§ Isa., xxv., 6. | Jer., xv., 16. g Ezek., ii, 8; ii, 1-% 


THE DISCOURSE. 85 


out; the food is to be taken freely, so as to per- 
vade the whole system; it also communicates 
pleasure to the prophet who obeys the command. 
Wisdom personified employs similar language: 
“They that eat me shall yet be hungry, and they 
that drink me shall yet be thirsty,”* that is, shall 
be desirous of more. Attention to these particu- 
lars may assist in showing the connexion between 
certain Hebrew words expressive of feeding and 
satisfaction, as NYY and 7¥}, and may also explain 
the fact that the former is used to denote assocta- 
tion and union. 

The same figure is employed by later Jewish 
writers. Thus the Rabbis say, that “every eat- 
ing and drinking mentioned in the book of Eccle- 
siastes refers to the law and to good works ;”} 
and Maimonipes employs similar language when 
he speaks of “ filling the stomach with bread and 
meat,” while he means to express the idea of 
“knowing what is lawful or unlawful.”[ Passa- 
ges have also been cited from the Talmud, in il- 
lustration of our Lord’s language, and to them I 
must now request the reader’s attention, and the 
more particularly, as they are commented on by 
Dr. Wiseman, who quotes them from Lightfoot. 

As the portion of the Talmud in connexion with 
which the passages occur is curious, and may 

* Ecclus., xxiv., 21. 


+ This is a quotation from the Midrash Koheleth, and has been 
repeatedly cited by the commentators. 
t Jad Hazakah, Grounds of the Law, chap. iv., ad fin., fol. 7, vol. 
i., Amsterdam edition. 
H 


86 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


serve to illustrate opinions of the ancient Jews 
in reference to certain prophecies respecting the 
Messiah, which their descendants of the Middle 
Ages and since have generally applied to some 
other object, and chiefly to the body of the nation 
personified, I shall not hesitate to make a larger 
quotation than is absolutely necessary merely to 
throw light on the phraseology in St. John. I 
shall give as literal a translation as the idioms of 
the two languages will allow, inserting the original 
words no farther than is required, in order to show 
the allusions of the Talmudist, and what may be 
called his play upon the words cited from Scrip- 
ture. He has just given certain comments of the 
Rabbis on Jer., xxx., 6, a small part of which is 
here introduced, simply because it serves to illus- 
trate the language every family, Taoa Tatpia, in 
Eph., iii, 15. “And what (means) all faces are 
turned into paleness? Rabbi Johanan says, the 
family which is above and the family which is below 
(RUD Sw Ona) noyn Ow NoDD), in the time when 
the holy one, blessed be he, will say, these are the 
work of my hands, and these are the work of my 
hands: how shall I destroy the one before the 
other?” The Jewish comment, printed in the 
margin, explains, “the family which is above and 
the family which is below,” of “the angels and 
Israel.” The Talmudical writer proceeds as fol- 
lows: “ Rab says Israel are about to eat the years 
of the Messiah. Says Rabbi Joseph, true, but 
who eats of him? .Do Hillek and Billek eat of 


THE DISCOURSE. 87 


him ?* in opposition to the words of Hillel, who 
said, there is no Messiah for Israel, for a long time 
ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah. Says 
Ray, he did not create the world except for David ; 
and Samuel says, for Moses; and Rabbi Johanan 
says, for Messiah. Whatis hisname? They of 
the house of Rabbi Shiloh say, that Shiloh is his 
name, as it is said, until Shiloh come.—Gen., xlix., 
10. They of the house of Yenoi say, that Yenon 
is his name, as it is said, his name shall live for- 
ever, with the sun his name shall be perpetuated 
(12°, yenon, Ps. Ixxii., 17). He who is of the 
house of Rabbi Chaninah says, Chaninah is his 
name, as it is said, because he will not show you 
mercy (AyIn, chaninah, Jer., xvi., 13). And some 
say that Menachem, the son of Hezekiah, is his 
name, as it is said, for the comforter (Oni, mena- 
chem) who should restore my soul is far from me 
—Lam.,i.,16. And our Rabbis say, leprous of 
the house of the Rabbi is his name, as it is said, 
but he bore our sickness, and our sorrows he sus- 
tained them, and we regarded him smitten (3113, 
the original for smitten, is sometimes’ used of lep- 
rosy), stricken by God and afflicted.”—Isa., liii., 4. 
Basytonian Taumup, treatise Sanneprim, fol. 98, 
2, towards the bottom. Then, after a very pre- 
posterous application of several other texts to the 
Messiah, the writer remarks: “ Rabbi Hillel says, 


* Hillek and Billek are the names of certain judges in Sodom, ac- 
cording to Rabbi Sotomon Jarcut, followed by Licutroot, Works, 
vol. ii., p. 554, fol., London, 1684. Buxtorr considers them as fic 
titious persons.—Lex. Talmud., p. 777. 


88 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


not for them, for Israel is Messiah, for a long 
time ago they ate him, in the days of Hezekiah.” 
He proceeds, then, to introduce Rabbi Joseph, re- 
futing Hillel by saying, that Hezekiah died under 
the first temple, and that under the second Zecha- 
riah prophesies of the Messiah, and says, “ Rejoice 
greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter 
of Jerusalem, behold, thy king cometh unto thee,” ~ 
Goede 9). 

Now let us examine Dr. Wiseman’s criticism on 
the words of Hillel, as explained by some Protest- 
ant divines. ‘These words,” says he, “ Light- 
foot quotes in a tone of triumph. ‘ Behold, eating 
the Messiah, and yet no complaints upon the 
phraseology. Hillel is, indeed, blamed for saying 
that the Messiah was so eaten that he will no 
longer be for Israel; but on the form of speech 
not the slightest scruple is expressed. For they 
clearly understood what was meant by the eating 
of the Messiah ; that is, that in the days of Eze- 
chias they became partakers of the Messiah, re- 

eived him with avidity, embraced him joyfully, 
nd, as it were, absorbed him; whence he was 
not to be expected at any future period.”’* The 
author's first remark, that “the phrase of Hillel is 
so obscure as to be unintelligible,” contains an ad- 
mission of what is certainly very true, namely, 
that he did not understand it. But, with singular 


* The author refers to Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice, Oper., tom. 
ii., Rotterdam, 1686, p. 626. In the London edition of his works in 
English, 1684, the passage occurs with some unimportant difference 
in the language in, vol. ii.,.p. 554. 


THE DISCOURSE. 89 


inconsistency, he immediately tells us that the 
meaning is, “ Messiah was destroyed or consumed 
in the days of Ezechiah,” thus giving a very clear 
sense to what he had just said is so dark “ that it 
cannot be understood.” His next remark, that 
Lightfoot’s meaning cannot be the true one, be- 
cause “it would be absurd to reason that the Mes- 
siah, promised solemnly by God, was to be with 
held because persons loved, embraced, and ab- 
sorbed him spiritually before his coming,” is suf- 
ficiently answered by a single line from that au- 
thor himself, which occurs immediately after the 
quotation just made from him. “Gloss upon the 
place. Messiah will come no more to Israel, for 
Hezekiah was the Messiah.”* 

The cardinal proceeds: “The Jewish doctors 
themselves did not understand the words of Hillel 
in Lightfoot’s sense. These are the words of the 
Talmud: ‘Rab said, Israel will eat the years of 
the Messiah. (The gloss explains this by “the 
abundance of the times of the Messiah will belong 
to Israel] !”) Rab Joseph said truly, but who will 
eatofir? (the abundance). Will Chillek and Bil- 
lek eat of rr? This was said to meet the saying 
of Hillel, &c. 

“ The Rabbins, therefore, understood the words 
of this doctor, not as applying to the Messiah, but 
to the abundance of his times ; and then the figure 


* It is hardly necessary to remind the reader that the absurdity of 
some notions of the Rabbis does not affect their relevancy to philo- 


logical inquiries. 
H2 


90 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


is not in the eating, but inthe word Messiah. Did 
they understand him rightly? Then Lightfoot’s 
interpretation is totally wrong, and no parallelism 
exists between these words and those of our Sav- 
iour ; for he certainly did not mean to inculcate 
the necessity of eating the abundance of his times. 
Did they misunderstand Hillel, and was it only 
Dr. Lightfoot who first arrived at his meaning ? 
Then it follows that Hillel, in these phrases, de- 
parted from the intelligible use of language, and 
consequently ceases to be a criterion for explain- 
ing it.” 

The reader cannot fail to observe, that Dr. 
Wiseman’s exposition relates to one only of the 
places alleged from the Talmud. The saying of 
Hillel, which is twice stated in the quotation as 
above given, still remains to be explained: “ Not 
for Israel is Messiah, for a long time ago they 
ate him in the days of Hezekiah.” It is also to be 
noted, that he introduces the gloss on the Talmud 
in immediate connexion with the text of it. Light- 
foot does the same thing, merely to give in passing 
the Jewish comment. But our learned author, 
not content with this legitimate use of the gloss, 
adapts the words of it to his own purpose, as if they 
were a continuous portion of the Talmudical text. 
The pronoun rr, by which he translates the origi- 
nal suffixes 10 and 4, is printed in capitals, and 
made to relate to its supposed antecedent abun- 
dance. The author could hardly have failed to 
perceive, that the singular pronoun could not refer 


THE DISCOURSE. 91 


to a plural antecedent years, and therefore he in- 
troduces the gloss, in which the word abundance 
occurs, and translates the suffix by the word it, 
although it can refer to no other word than Mes- 
siah, which immediately precedes it, and ought to 
be rendered him. And farther, what must the 
reader think when he is informed that this sup- 
posed antecedent is no part of the Talmud, but 
occurs ina Jewish commentary written hundreds 
of years after the sayings of Rab and Rabbi Hil- 
lel had been published in that body of Hebrew 
law! The gloss on this most ancient work was 
written by Rassr Sotomon Jarcut, commonly 
called Rasue, who flourished in the eleventh cen- 
tury. What would be thought of an expositor 
of Homer who should find an antecedent to one 
of the great poet’s pronouns in the gloss of his 
commentator Eustathius? and particularly when 
the antecedent had been just before expressed by 
the bard himself? The only apology for Dr. 
Wiseman is, that he does not understand what he 
has undertaken to explain; and notwithstanding 
his confident censure of Dr. Lightfoot, to whom 
he seems to be indebted for what he does know 
on this point of Rabbinical learning, he might prof- 
itably sit at the feet of that great master of Israel- 
itish literature.* 

* The high authority of Lightfoot is conceded by Dr. Wiseman, 
accompanied by a remark which will suggest to the reader a well- 
known proverb: ‘‘ Let Dr. Turton listen to a commentator of his own 


Charch, compared to whom all its modern ones are pigmies.” This 
introduces a quotation from Lightfoot’s Hore, Reply, &c., p. 177. 


92 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


But we must not yet part with Rashe’s gloss. 
It contains satisfactory evidence that the inter- 
pretation which our author dismisses in such a 
summary way is the only true one; for it explains 
the clause, “Israel are about to eat the years of 
the Messiah,” by the language, “the abundance 
which shall be in those days shall be for Israel,” 
which evidently denotes enjoyment and satiety, 
and not “destruction.” And this is farther evident 
from what he afterward remarks on the words 
of Hillel. “Not Messiah for Israel: because Hez- 
ekiah was Messiah, and of him are said all the 
prophecies; (as), I will cause the horn of the house 
of Israel to bud; and he shall stand and feed in 
the strength of the Lord.”* The reader may now 
judge whether Dr. Lightfoot, and other eminent 
divines Jearned in Rabbinical lore, who have ex- 
plained the words of the Talmud the same way 
with himself, are less entitled to consideration in 
a question of this sort than Dr. Wiseman. 

Since now the Jews were accustomed to the 
use of such figures in order to express a reception 
of truth in the mind and heart, and since it is ad- 
mitted that the figure, as employed in the former 
portion of our Lord’s discourse, was so understood 
by them, what should have hindered them from ap- 
plying the same figure, amplified and fully devel- 
oped, to the same great truth? Certainly, as Pau- 
Lus says, “the discourse of Jesus would not have 
been unintelligible to the Jews, if they had wished 


¥ Ezek.,'xxix., a1. -Miec., v.,.4 


THE DISCOURSE. 93 


to understand him.”* We are compelled, how- 
ever reluctantly, to apply his own language on 
another occasion: “Why do ye not understand 
my speech? because ye cannot hear my word.” + 
Your ignorance, prejudice, passion, whole internal 
character, form the great insurmountable barrier, 
which prevents your seeing and embracing the 
truth. 

It will most probably be urged, that the figure 
of eating and drinking does not fully come up to 
the strong expressions, “eat the flesh and drink the 

lood.” And it is certainly true, as Trrrmann has 
remarked, that not a single example of such a use 
of these phrases can be alleged, and that the forms 
of expression are peculiar to our Lord alone.{ It 
is true, also, as he moreover says, that “the Jews 
could not at that time have understood the force 
of the language ;” but not for the reason which 
Wiseman’s representation of this writer would 
naturally suggest, because “the sense put on the 
words by Protestants is contrary to usage ;” but 
because “the preconceived opinions which had 
taken possession of their minds obliged our Lord 
to avoid the use of proper§ and perspicuous 
terms, and to express himself in tropical diction.” || 
But he goes on to observe (what has already 


* Commentar tiber das Evangelium des Johannes, Leipsic, 1812, 
p. 255- Tt John, viii., 43. t See Wiseman, page 87. 

§ He employs the word propriis in a technical sense, in contra- 
distinction te figurative. 

|| Tittmanni Meletemata Sacra sive Commentarius in Evangelium 
Johannis, Lips., 1816, p. 272 


94 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


been stated in this Essay), that “the Jews them- 
selves gave occasion to the language,” and that 
“throughout the place is figurative.”* The Sav- 
iour does but take up and draw out the object- 
or’s language; the germ of the expressions is 
contained in the preceding part of the discourse. 
The rule laid down by Dr. Wiseman, that, in 
conducting philological investigations, we must 
“study words as they are used in peculiar cir- 
cumstances,” a rule which is founded in com- 
mon sense, and applied in the daily intercourse of 
men, satisfactorily accounts for the use of the 
terms. As I have already stated and illustrated 
this judicious principle, it is sufficient, in this con- 
nexion, simply to recall it to the reader’s atten- 
tion. 

Should it, after all, be objected, that if we sup- 
pose such a faith as has been described to be 
what is meant, the language is obscure, and the 
sentiment not conveyed with that clearness which 
might ordinarily be expected; it may be replied 
with force, and agreeably to Scripture analogy, 
that to such hearers our Lord was in no respects 
bound to convey his doctrines in the clearest and 
most intelligible terms. They were not men of 
honest and simple minds, disposed to receive the 
Gospel, but captious opponents of the truth, in 
whom the understanding was darkened by the per- 
version and prejudice of the heart. It is a serious 
consideration, which ought to be deeply impressed 


* Pages 275, 276. 


THE DISCOURSE. 95 


on the mind of every one who proposes to search 
after religious truth, that the arrangement of di- 
vine Providence makes the acquisition dependant, 
in no slight degree, on the moral character of the 
seeker. The humble, docile, candid, and diligent 
inquirer is the one most likely to be successful ; 
while the conceited and prejudiced, who does not 
fee] an interest in the subject strong enough to 
impel him to careful and habitual attention, is al- 
lowed to persist in that very ignorance which, by 
a fatuity not at all uncommon, he mistakes for a 
more than ordinary degree of wisdom. It is as 
much the appointment of God as it is the decision 
of Christ, that “if any man will do his will, he 
shall know whether the doctrine be of God”* or 
man. And in harmony with the same fundament- 
al axiom, divine wisdom declares, that “the words 
of her mouth are all plain to him that understand- 
eth,” that is, who sincerely loves the truth, and 
properly attends to instruction.t 

From what has been said, I conclude that this 
part of our Lord’s discourse, like the preceding, 
urges the necessity of a living faith in Christ, act- 
ing on the atonement which he was about to offer, 
and expresses the union with himself which such 
a faith produces, and the blessed consequences 
resulting. While the words fitly denote the ac- 
tion of such faith on its divine object during the 


* Jonn, vii., 17, 
+ Prov., viii., 8,9. Thisis implied in the word 72), and is given 
by the Chaldee and Syriac versions. 


$6 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


various occasions of a religious life, they are par- 
ticularly appropriate to that action in the Sacra- 
ment of the Lord’s Supper, which our Church, in 
the spirit of Scripture and the language of anti- 
quity, most properly enjoins on the communicant 
in the terms: “ Feed on him in thy heart by rarra.” 
In the same truly Christian spirit does she com- 
fort the dying believer, who is prevented by 
uncontrollable circumstances from commemora- 
ting his Master’s death in the eucharist, by assu- 
ring him “that, if he do truly repent him of his 
sins, and steadfastly believe that Jesus Christ hath 
suffered death upon the cross for him, and shed 
his blood for his redemption, earnestly remember- 
ing the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him 
hearty thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the 
bedy and blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to 
his soul’s health, although he do not receive the 
sacrament with his mouth.”* In the words of St. 
Augustin, “ Believe, and thou hast eaten.” + 

The remainder of the chapter does not requre 
very particular examination. It relates the fact, 
which need not be surprising to any, that the doc- 
trine was objected to as harsh, and became an oc- 
casion of the apostacy of many who had before 
professed attachment to the teacher, while the 
true disciples persevered in their faith and love, 
verses 60, 61, 66-71. It contains, also, our Lord’s 
own correction of the erroneous and literal sense 


* Third Rubric in the Office for the Communion of the Sick. 
+ In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract. xxv., 9 12, tom. ii., par. il., p. 354 


THE DISCOURSE. 97 


of his words, verses 62, 63, and his reference to 
the leading cause of the error, want of faith pro- 
duced by the Father’s influence, verses 64,65. I 
shall conclude this part of the discussion by exam- 
ining the great Master’s correction. 

“Does this offend you?” throw an obstacle in 
the way of your faith and perseverance, and in- 
cline you to reject my doctrine? “If, then, you 
should see the Son of Man ascending where he 
was before?” These words may be intended to 
convey the thought, that the harshness of his sup- 
posed meaning would necessarily be increased 
after his ascension, when: his flesh and blood 
should be removed, and his bodily presence no 
more be continued ; and thus they would amplify 
the supposed ground of stumbling. As if he had 
said: “If this doctrine is now so distasteful to you, 
how abhorrent to your feelings and partial reason- 
ings will it appear after I shall have resumed my 
former condition in heaven!” According to this 
view, the verse, instead of containing anything like 
a solution of the difficulty, only draws it out with 
the more particularity. The solution, if there be 
one, begins with the next words. If, however, 
the verse be regarded as the commencement of 
the solution, it unquestionably implies this most 
important point, namely, that the literal exposition 
is a palpable absurdity and contradiction, which a 
sane mind, not under some undue extraneous in- 
fluence, could hardly be thought capable of enter- 
tain.ng. Then it will be as if Christ had said: 


I 


98 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


“Does my language present an impediment to 
your faith? You have grossly misunderstood me; 
and my ascension to heaven will prove to you 
that the literal sense in which you have taken my 
words cannot possibly be the true one.” Which- 
ever of these views may be thought preferable, 
the meaning of the next verse will not be mate- 
rially affected. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, 
the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak 
unto you are spirit and are life.” It is necessary 
to give the general sense of these words. 

If the literal meaning be adhered to, “ the flesh” 
must be explained of Christ’s body, and then the 
assertion will be, that his body, even if it were to 
be eaten and incorporated with the substance of 
the recipient, would not benefit him. Neither 
Scripture nor reason affords any ground for deny- 
ing the truth of this assertion. And this sense is 
given to the word flesh in this verse by several 
distinguished divines. Thus Cranmer, for exam- 
ple, after quoting our Saviour’s language, remarks: 
“ These words our Saviour Christ spake, to lift up 
their minds from earth to heaven, and from carnal 
to spiritual eating, that they should not phantasy 
that they should with their teeth eat him present 
here on earth; for his flesh, so eaten, saith he, 
should nothing profit them. And yet so they 
should not eat him; for he would take his body 
away from them and ascend with it into heaven, 
and then by faith, and not with teeth, they should 
spiritually eat him, sitting at the right hand of the 


THE DISCOURSE. 99 


Father. And, therefore, saith he, the words which 
I do speak be spirit and life; that is to say, are 
not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with 
our teeth grossly and carnally, but that we shall 
spiritually and ghostly with our faith eat him, be- 
ing carnally absent from us in heaven, and in such 
wise as Abraham and other holy fathers did eat 
him many years before he was incarnated and 
born.”* Faser, who cites the passage, agrees 
with the archbishop. ‘“ When we take in the en- 
tire context of the whole discourse, which teaches 
us both that no man can be saved without eating 
Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, and that every 
man who does thus eat and who does thus drink 
will infallibly obtain eternal salvation; and when 
we farther note the necessary tenour of the argu- 
ment from the Lord’s previous descent to his then 
future ascent, I really think that words can scarce- 
ly be plainer than those wherein Christ avowedly 
contrasts the spirit of his discourse with the letter. 
My flesh, we may view him as saying, if it were 
possible for the infinite millions of mankind all 
grossly to eat of it, would, under that aspect, profit 
them nothing to eternal salvation. The whole 
context of the discourse shows, that by the flesh 
we must understand our Lord’s own flesh which 
he had declared he would give his people to eat; 
and by the spirit, a spiritual manducation as op- 


* Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, 
&c. Remains of THomas Cranmer, D.D., Oxford, 1833, vol. ii, 
Pp. 378. 


100 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION OF 


posed to a gross carnal manducation. Under this 
aspect, the following will be the sense of the pas- 
sage: ‘The flesh of which I speak, namely, my 
own material flesh, would profit you nothing in 
the way of obtaining everlasting life, even were 
it possible for you to eat it bodily with your teeth 
when I shall have ascended up to heaven.”* Ham- 
MOND seeins to have taken the same view, and 
Wurrsy explains the term of the body of Christ. 
Stil, a figurative meaning of the word, in this 
place, may consistently be maintained, on account 
of the antithesis with spirit, and the ordinary 
usage of Scripture in such cases. The term flesh 
is so often employed in a tropical sense, that fig- 
ure of some sort may well be admitted in this in- 
stance, although it is not easy to say very defi- 
nitely within what limits, and by what literal ex- 
pressions, the thought is to be confined. The 
terms flesh and carnal are used, and most natural- 
ly, for the external, in contradistinction to the in- 
ward, and hence to designate man as what he ap- 
pears to be: as,“ All flesh is grass; the Word was 
made flesh ;”> for the merely outward, superficial, 
imperfect, in which sense they are applied to the 
rites of the law, as when St. Paul asks the Gala- 
tians, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the 
spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?” and 
speaks of Christ as a priest, “not after the power 
* Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum, &c., chap. iv., p. 92, 93, 95. 


London, 1840. 
+ Isa, xl. 5. -Sohny1:, 14. 


THE DISCOURSE. 101 


of a carnal commandment,” and of the legal servi- 
ces as “carnal ordinances ;”* for what either is, or 
is considered as inadequate, low, and comparative- 
ly contemptible, as where it is said, “If we have 
sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing 
if we shall reap your carnal things?” And again: 
“The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but 
mighty,” &c. ;t and, lastly, for what is vile, cor- 
rupt, sinful, as in the texts, “I am carnal, sold un- 
der sin ;” “ Who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the spirit,” and others to the same effect.[ And, 
on the other hand, the words spirit and spiritual 
are often employed to denote the inward, excel- 
lent, perfect, holy, and divine. This is evident 
from the following passages: “ What man know- 
eth the things of a man save the spirit of a man 
which is in him?” They “did all eat the same 
spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual 
drink.” ‘He that was born after the flesh per- 
secuted him that was born after the spirit.")_ ‘T'o 
this view of the usage of Scripture it may be ada- 
ed, that the previous use of the word flesh would 
naturally have led our Lord to adopt it in a mod- 
ified sense; as is the case with other words else- 
where. Of this we have instances in St. Paul’s 
writings. Thus, he employs the word s/eep in 
different modifications of meaning even in the 

* Gal., iii., 3. Heb., vii., 16; ix., 10. 

face ie, bie 2: Cor.) X.5'4: 

~ Rom., vii., 14; viii, 4-9. John, il, 6. 

§ 1Cor., ii, 11; x.,3,4. Gal., iv., 29. To these might be added 


' Car. =v:,45. ‘Kom., 1, 4. John, 1v., 24. 


2 


102 ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION, ETC. 


same connexion, and also present and absent. 
And in the epistle to the Hebrews, the word camp 
is used in a figurative sense, although it had just 
before been employed in its literal meaning.* In 
accordance, therefore, with these facts, and in 
perfect harmony with the common meaning of 
these terms, flesh and spirit, is the view which 
expounds the verse thus: ‘ That apprehension of 
my language which is limited to the outward and 
superficial, which accords with the secular and 
degrading, which is compatible with the vile and 
sinful, the corrupt and corrupting naturalness of 
the heart, is not only useless, but positively inju- 
rious.t| The deeper meaning brings happiness 
and joy. The ‘more excellent way’ which it 
opens, the practical, soul-stirring principle which 
it develops, the heavenly and divine life which, 
when rightly received, it causes to germinate and 
flourish—these constitute its vitality and real 
worth.’ It is unnecessary to say that this closing 
declaration of our Lord is in most perfect keeping 
with the view given of his discourse in the pre- 
ceding analysis. 

*.) ‘Thess, v., 0, 1, 10; .2 Cor,-v.; 6, 8,9, THeb.; xi, Ts, 27. 

t+ This verbal addition is implied, though not expressed, and is in 
accordance with numerous other instances in Scripture where less is 
said than is evidently intended. Illustration seems unnecessary ; yet 


the )eader is referred to Matt., xii., 20, and to Rom., i., 16, compared 
with Gal., vi., 14. 


Palka TLE 


VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS AND OF 
SOME MODERN DIVINES. 


I proceep now to present to the reader’s atten- 
tion some quotations from the more prominent of 
the early fathers, in reference to the view enter- 
tained by them of the nature and design of our 
Lord’s discourse. Lest he should find these less 
clear and luminous than he may have expected 
such a representation to be, it may not be amiss 
to remind him that most of these good men were 
chiefly interested in spreading a knowledge of the 
Gospel, and in cultivating its practical influence 
on their own characters. Formal and critical in- 
terpretation will be looked for in vain in the wri- 
ters of the first three centuries. Their exposi- 
tions of Scripture must be sought in various trea- 
tises on topics of philosophy and theology, in de- 
fences of the Christian faith, in epistolary writings, 
and in works composed in opposition to prevalent 
errors. Commentary, in the later sense of the 
word, was hardly known. Modern theologians 
have differed in their views of the exposition 
given by these fathers of the chapter under con- 
sideration; some contending that they understood 
it directly of the eucharist, while others maintain 
that they only apply part of its language to this 


104 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


sacrament. ‘This fact is itself sufficient evidence 
that the exposition of these fathers is not so def- 
inite and perspicuous as some persons, unac- 
quainted with their works, may suppose. Mr. 
Jounson maintains that they interpret it prima- 
rily and properly of the eucharist, and only re- 
motely of receiving Christ’s doctrine or precepts. 
“T conceive that the fathers never doubted but 
that this mystical or spiritual sense was that which 
our Saviour primarily intended.” He uses the 
words “mystical” and “spiritual” in the sense of 
original, and in contradistinction to applicable : 
“ Besides the primary and direct sense of the text, 
the ancients commonly supposed that there was a 
reductive or anagogical meaning in which it might 
be taken.” “They might be fully persuaded that 
John, vi., was first and most properly to be under- 
stood of the eucharist; and yet, at the same time, 
be of opinion that it might likewise, in a more re- 
mote way, be applied to receiving of Christ’s doc- 
trine or precepts. And, so far as I am able to pen- 
etrate into the judgment of the ancients in this par- 
ticular, [ can see no reason to believe that they 
did ever understand John, vi., of believing Christ’s 
doctrine or receiving his word by faith, extra 
cenam, to be meant by our Saviour otherwise 
than in this anagogical way of interpretation.”* 
On the other hand, Dr. Warerztanp advocates 


* The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar, unveiled and supported. By 
Joun Jounson, M.A., Vicar of Cranbrook, London, 1724 part i, 
chap. ii., sec. v., p. 358, 359. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 105 


che opinion that the early fathers do not interpret 
this chapter directly of the eucharist, but only ap- 
ply it to that sacrament. “ They who judge that 
the fathers in general, or almost universally, do in- 
terpret John, vi., of the eucharist, appear not to 
distinguish between interpreting and applying. 
It was right to apply the general doctrine of John, 
vi., to the particular case of the eucharist consid- 
ered as worthily received ; because the spiritual 
feeding there mentioned is the thing signified in 
the eucharist, yea, and performed likewise. After 
we have sufficiently proved from other Scriptures 
that in and by the eucharist ordinarily such spir- 
itual food is conveyed, it is then right to apply all 
that our Lord, by St. John, says in the general to 
that particular case. And _ this, indeed, the fa- 
thers commonly did. But such application does 
not amount to interpreting that chapter of the 
eucharist. For example, the words, ‘except ye 
eat the flesh of Christ, &c., you have no life in 
you, do not mean directly, that you have no life 
without the eucharist, but that you have no life 
without participating in our Lord’s passion. Nev- 
ertheless, since the eucharist is one way of partici- 
pating of the passion, and a very considerable one, 
it was very pertinent and proper to urge the doc- 
trine of that chapter, both for the clearer under- 
standing the beneficial nature of the eucharist, and 
for the exciting Christians to a frequent and de- 
vout reception of it. Such was the use which 
some early fathers made of John, vi., as our Church 


106 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


also does at this day, and that very justly, though 
I will not say that some of the later fathers did 
not extend it farther.”* 

I have particularly mentioned these two learn- 
ed divines, because, although both are distinguish- 
ed by profound and extensive acquaintance with 
ancient writers, they cannot agree in determining 
the sense which the early fathers intended to give 
of this chapter. And this fact is sufficient to show 
that the obscurity in the inspired page itself is not 
always removed by the expositions even of the 
best of these writers. The interpretation may 
chance to be no clearer than the text, and equally 
to require philological investigation and antiqua- 
rian research. The view of Dr. Waterland does 
appear to me the most probable. Although, after 
the fourth century, the discourse was often ex- 
plained directly in reference to the eucharist; and 
so much were the fathers generally in the habit 
of associating in their minds the thing signified 
with its sign, or, to approach nearer to their own 
language, the substance with the sacrament, that, 
in explaining the discourse of spiritual eating and 
drinking, several of them connect with it a refer- 


* A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as Jaid down in 
Scripture and Antiquity. By Danrex Warer.anp, D.D., Cam- 
bridge, 1737, chap. vi., p. 149, 150. Or the seventh volume of his 
works, published at Oxford in 1823. The reader who undertakes to 
peruse Mr. Johnson’s work would do well to read and meditate on 
the brief but masterly notice of it in Waterland’s appendix to a charge, 
entitled, ‘‘ The Christian Sacrifice explained,” in the eighth volume 
of his works, p. 180-223. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 107 


ence to sacramental. That some of the fathers 
either are not or do not appear to be always con- 
sistent with themselves in explaining parts of this 
discourse, is attributed by Lampe to the fact, that 
in the sacrament of the eucharist they admitted 
not an oral, but a spiritual manducation, by faith, 
of Christ’s body and blood.* 

I submit the following quotations from the ear- 
ly fathers, with such comment merely as seems 
necessary. They are the most important pas- 
sages bearing on our Lord’s discourse which their 
works contain. I have endeavoured to give their 
true meaning, but the accompanying originals will 
enable the competent reader to form his own judg- 
ment. To have quoted everything on the subject 
in these writings, adding such remarks as a criti- 
cal investigation of their purport and application 
might require, would have swelled this Essay into 
a large volume, without in any great degree in- 
creasing its usefulness. ? 

Ienatius is the earliest writer who seems to al- 
lude to this chapter of St.John. In his epistle to 
the Romans, after speaking of his desire to die, and 
of a living principle within him, “ which says, 
come to the Father,” he remarks, “I delight not 
in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this 
life; I wish for the bread of God, which is the 
flesh of Jesus Christ of the race of David, and the 


* Hec inconstantia Patrum proculdubio inde orta est, quod in Sa- 
cramento Eucharistie non oralem, sed spiritualem fidei manducatio- 
nem admitterent. Commentarius Evang. secundum Johannem, 
Amst., 1727, 4to, tom. il., p. 257. 


108 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


drink I wish for is his blood, which is incorrupti- 
ble love. No longer do I wish to live according 
to men.”’* 

It is particularly worthy of notice, that the au- 
thor does not formally quote any text, but merely 
alludes to the 33d, 51st, and 55th verses, as if the 
general subject of the discourse were in his mind. 
This peculiarity characterizes the quotations and 
references to Scripture in the smaller epistles of 
Ignatius, while the larger generally contain the 
texts full and accurate; a fact which goes far to 
settle the authority of the one, as it harmonizes 
with the condition and circumstances of the wri- 
ter, and also to show that the others are the pro- 
duction of a Jater age, and were written under 
different circumstances. 

Mr. Johnson gives another exposition of the 
words rendered “incorruptible love,” by adding 
to this evidently correct translation the clause, 
“or an incorruptible love feast!’ And he en- 
deavours to show that the holy martyr, harassed 
by the fatigues of his journey, and by the confine- 
ment to which he was subjected by his guards, 
his “leopards,” as he elsewhere calls them, here 
expresses his wish to partake of the Lord’s Sup- 
per! “I own he was just before speaking of go- 
ing to the Father, and in the following words he 


* Ovy 7douat tp0dH P0opdc, otdé HOovaic Tod Biov TovTOV~ ap- 
tov Tov Seod édu, 6 éott caps Ijood Xpiorod rov éx yévouc Aa- 
6id - Kat réua SéAw 76 aiva adbtod, 6 éortiv &yann apbapToc.— 
Epist. to the Romans, chap. vii. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 109 


declares that he desires not human life; but I 
cannot think it any incoherence, when he was 
speaking of going to the Father and not desiring 
to live here, to express his holy hunger and thirst 
after that which has always been thought the 
most proper viaticum, the Holy Eucharist. ’Tis 
probable he had not been permitted, while under 
the custody of his inhuman keepers, in his voyage, 
to celebrate the eucharist, or that he durst not do 
it for fear of having the mysteries profaned by 
them ; but he hoped when he came to Rome to 
have an opportunity of refreshing himself with 
that divine repast; and I suppose he expresses 
these hopes and desires in the words now cited. 
And I am pretty sure that there is no incongruity 
in this supposition; whereas eating of Christ’s 
flesh in another world is a way of expression 
somewhat unaccountable.”* To endeavour to 
disprove such a supposition appears to me wholly 
unnecessary. It is evident that Ignatius alludes 
to our Lord’s discourse at Capernaum; and it 
is equally evident from his language itself, from 
the connexion in which it stands, and from the 
circumstances under which the epistle was writ- 
ten, that the holy man has in mind, not a partici- 
pation of the eucharist, but a spiritual enjoyment 
of Christ, and that principally after his martyr- 
dom. This is to me the undoubted meaning of 
the spiritually-minded bishop, and, to employ the 
language of Mr. Johnson, “St. Ignatius, after all, 


* Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., chap. ii., sec. v., p. 394. 
K 


110 VIEW OF THE EAKLY FATHERS, 


is instead of a thousand witnesses.”* “'T'o me,” 
says Dr. Waterland, “it appears a clear point that 
he thought not of communicating, but of dying. 
I see no impropriety in his feeding on the flesh 
and blood of Christ in a state of glory. Our en- 
joyment in a world to come is entirely founded 
in the merits of Christ’s passion, and our Lord’s 
intercession for us stands on the same bottom. 
Our spiritual food, both above and below, is the 
enjoyment of the same Christ, the Lamb slain. 
The future feast upon the fruits of his atonement 
is but the continuation and completion of the 
present.” 

The phrase “ bread of God,” which occurs in 
this passage, is employed also by Ignatius in his 
epistle to the Ephesians. “Let no one deceive 
himself. Unless any one be within the altar, he is 
deprived of the bread of God.”{ It is assumed 
by Johnson as undeniable that he uses it of the 
Lord’s Supper. “ By calling the eucharist the 
bread of God he clearly refers to John, vi., 33 ;” 
“itis certain that by that phrase he means the eu- 
charist.”§ But so far is this from being certain, 
that it does not appear to be even probable. The 
language is used in the same sense in which it is 
employed in the verse referred to, that is to say, 
of Christ himself, who came from God to be the 
author and sustainer of our spiritual life. This 


* Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., chap. il., sec. v., p. 392. 

+ P..153, 154. 

t Mydeic rAavdcbw* éav ph Tig 7 1 Td¢ TOD GvoracTnpicv, Vo- 
reogiTal TOD apTov Tov eod.—- Chap. v. § P. 346, 394. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 111 


alone would be sufficient reason for applying to 
him such figurative language; but inasmuch as 
the phrase is frequently used of sacrifices under 
the law,* it doubtless is chosen with the intention 
of representing him as also the great sacrifice 
whereby alone God is propitiated. In John, vi., 
33, our Saviour calls himself, and afterward Ig- 
natius calls him, “the bread of God, as he was a 
sacrifice for the sins of the world, and mysterious- 
ly to be eaten as such.” This is almost self-evi- 
dent as regards the first passage in Ignatius. In 
the other the word “altar” will doubtless be 
thought by many to favour Johnson’s opinion. But 
it is a mistake to suppose that Ignatius intends by 
this word to designate the Lord’s Table. That 
author understands it of the “ altar-room,” by be- 
ing called up into which, and there “eating the 
sacrifice,” he says, that “ Christian people are dig- 
nified beyond the old peculium” (the Jews), and 
“within which all communicants did unquestion- 
ably, in St. Ignatius’s time, go, in order to receive 
the eucharist,” although afterward “they were 
prohibited from entering into the altar-room.”} 
He avoids the absurdity of the literal meaning of 
persons being within an altar, by giving a sense 
to the word which is wholly unfounded, and by 
adhering to a literal meaning of the whole clause, 
alike unworthy of the martyr and his subject, and 

* ‘Levit. xx1, 6, 8; 1722 3ixxit; 25. 

+ I willingly adopt the language of the learned writer referred to. 


See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i., p. 425. 
t Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 347. 


112 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


inconsistent with the peculiar circumstances un- 
der which he wrote. There is hardly any reason 
to doubt that here, and in the three other places 
in which the term occurs, Ignatius uses the word 
in a figurative sense, for the Church, or for Christ 
himself, in connexion with whom, as around an 
altar or in a temple, all spiritual blessings do, as it 
were, cluster. That, in the place just cited, he 
means the Church, is evident from the preceding 
context, and from that which immediately follows. 
The whole passage runs thus: “ How must I es- 
teem you happy who are so intimately united with 
him (the bishop), as the Church is with Jesus 
Christ and Jesus Christ with the Father, that all 
things may accord in unity! Let no one deceive 
himself. Unless any one be within the altar, he 
is deprived of the bread of God. For if the pray- 
er of one and two have so great efficacy, how 
much rather will that of the bishop and the whole 
Church!” To the Magnesians he says: “There 
is one Lord Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is 
more excellent. Run together, therefore, all as 
to one temple, as to one altar, as to one Jesus 
Christ” (chap. vii.). To the Trallians: “ He that 
is within the altar is pure” (chap. vii). In both 
these places the meaning is also plain. In the 
only remaining one in which the term occurs, in 
the epistle to the Philadelphians, it might be un- 
derstood of the Lord’s Table, and has often been 
so explained. See Svicer’s Thesaurus, under 
Svotaoryploy, ii., 1, d; Parkuurst’s Greek Lexi- 


Ne 
AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 113 


con, No. II., and Tuo.tuck on Heb., xiii., 10. The 
words are these: “ There is one flesh of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, and one cup for unity in his blood, 
one altar” (chap. iv.). Still I cannot but think 
that a careful attention to the context, and partic- 
ularly the immediately preceding chapter, will 
satisfy the reader that the meaning already sug- 
gested is preferable. The apostolic man is urging 
those to whom he writes to unity, and the term 
altar may with as much propriety be understood 
of the Church as of the Lord’s Table; and the 
probability that such is its meaning here is 
strengthened by the fact that such is the undoubt- 
ed sense of it elsewhere. The context is as fol- 
lows: “ As many as shall repent and come to the 
unity of the Church, these shall be God’s, that they 
may live according to Jesus Christ. Be not de- 
ceived, my brethren. If any one follow a schis- 
matic, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 
If any one walk after a different opinion, he is not 
in harmony with Christ’s passion. Be careful, 
therefore, to use one eucharist; for there is one 
flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for 
unity in his blood, one altar.” It is very surpri- 
sing that any one should wish to give to these pla- 
ces a meaning which refers chiefly to what is 
material or local.* 


_ * I may take this opportunity of remarking, that the best of the 
Greek fathers give a similar figurative meaning to the word altar in 
Heb., xiii., 10. Thus, THropor=t, on that epistle: “This,” says 
he, “is much more precious than the old, for that was a shadow of 


K 2 


114 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


I do not find anything in Justin Marryr bear- 
ing on the interpretation of this chapter, and there- 
fore pass on to Irenaxus. There is only one pas- 
sage within my knowledge in the works of this 
father which may be thought to allude to this 
chapter, and even this is of doubtful application. 
He says that our Lord did not come to us, as he 
might have done, in his incorruptible glory, which 
we could not have borne; but “the perfect bread 
of the Father supplied us, as babes with milk, 
himself, which was his advent according to man, 
that we, nourished by the breast, as it were, of 
his flesh, and accustomed by such lactation to eat 
and drink the Word of God, might be able to re- 


tain in ourselves the bread of immortality, which 


this. That recéives the irrational sacrifices, but this that which is 
rational and divine.”—Opera, tom. ili., p. 460. And CHrysostom, 
Hom. xi., on Heb. (chap. vi.): “‘ For see, we have above the victim, 
above the priest, above the sacrifice. Let us, therefore, offer such 
sacrifices as can be offered on such an altar. No more sheep and 
oxen; no more blood and odour of burned fat. All these are abol- 
ished, and in their place is substituted a rational worship.”—Opera, 
tom. xill., Bened. edit., p. 114. He then proceeds to describe this 
worship as spiritual, consisting in modesty, temperance, almsgiving, 
and other virtues. Also, Cyriut of Alexandria: “ He, therefore, is 
the altar, and he the incense and high-priest.”—On Adoration, lib. ix., 
p 310; as quoted in Suicer, ubi sup.,ii., 1, a. THEOPHYLACT prob- 
auly understood it of the Lord’s Table : ‘* After remarking on the 9th 
verse, that meats are not to be regarded, he says” (that is, the author 
of the epistle) ‘that we also have what should be regarded, not, in- 
deed, in such meats, but in the altar of the unbloody sacrifice of the 
quickening body.”—Opera, vol. ii., p.758. Cryrill’s language appears 
to me tu contain the fullest meaning. As if the Apostie had said, all 
the blessings of the Gospel meet in Christ. To speak of the aitar, is 
to speak of the sacrifice, of the priest, of the temple, and of all con- 
nected with and flowing from them. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 115 


is the spirit of the Father.”* If the Bishop of Ly- 
ons does refer to John, vi., he evidently does not 
consider the discourse as relating directly to the 
eucharist, as he is discoursing of Christ’s incarna- 
tion, by which the eating and drinking which he 
speaks of are effected. A spiritual union and in- 
corporation with the Word is certainly intended. 

TERTULLIAN comments on some passages in 
this chapter, if not in the most perspicuous man- 
ner, yet clearly enough to show that he had no 
idea of explaining it directly of the eucharist. He 
is proving that our Lord’s expression, “the flesh 
profiteth nothing,” does not militate against the 
doctrine of the resurrection. “ Although he says 
the flesh profiteth nothing, the meaning must be 
drawn from the subject of the declaration. For, 
because they considered his discourse as harsh 
and intolerable, as if he had decided that his own 
flesh was to be truly eaten by them, in order that 
he might arrange the state of salvation in (refer- 
ence to) the Spirit, he premised, it is the Spirit 
that quickeneth. And consequently he subjoined, 
the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, in quickening. 
This is followed, also, by what he intends us to 
understand by spirit: the words which I have 

* Aid TowvTO, O¢ vyTiolc, 6 dpTtog 6 TéAELOC Tod Ilatpo¢ yada Huiv 
éautov rapécyerv, rep Hv 7 Kat’ GvOpwrov dvTod Tapovoia, iva 
O¢ dro pacbod Tij¢ capKdg aGvTOd TpadgévTec, Kal dia TH¢ ToLadTHE 
yaraxtoupyiac éO.obévrec tpwyewv Kai rivery TOV Adyov Tod eor, 
Tov tH¢ abavaciag aprov, brep éoti TO mvévua Tod Ilatpéc, év 


nuiv avtotc xatecyeiv duvvnfiuev.—Adv. Her., lib. iv. cap. Ixxiv., 
p. 378, edit. Grade, Oxon., 1702. 


116 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


spoken to you are spirit, and they are life. As 
also before: he that heareth my words and be- 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and 
shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from 
death to life. Constituting, therefore, the Word 
as the vivifier, because the Word is spirit and life, 
he called the same also his own flesh, because the 
Word was made flesh, and is therefore to be ear- 
nestly sought for with a view to life, is to be de- 
voured by hearing, ruminated on in the under- 
standing, and digested by faith. For a little be- 
fore, he had declared his own flesh to be heavenly 
bread, constantly impressing, by means of the al- 
legory of necessary food, a recollection of their 
fathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of 
the Egyptians to the divine vocation. Adverting, 
therefore, to their thoughts, because he had per- 
ceived that they were scattered, he says, the flesh 
profiteth nothing. What is there here to destroy - 
the resurrection of the flesh ?”* 


* Etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse, ex materia dicti dirigendus est 
sensus. Nam, quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermo- 
nem ejus, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset ; ut in 
spiritum disponeret statum salutis, premisit, spiritus est qui vivificat. 
Atque ita subjunxit, caro nihil prodest; ad vivificandum scilicet. 
Exequitur etiam quia velit intelligi spiritum, verba que locutus sum 
vobis, spiritus sunt, vita sunt. Sicut et supra; qui audit sermones 
meos et credit in eum qui me misit, habet vitam eternam, et in judi- 
cium non veniet, sed transiet de morte ad vitam. Itaque sermonem 
constituens vivificatorem, quid spiritus et vita sermo, eundem etiam 
carnem suam dixit ; quia et sermo caro est factus, proinde in causam 
vite appetendas, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et 
fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante, carnem suam panem quoque 
ceelestein pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per aliegoriam necessa- 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 117 


Another passage is also worthy of note. “Give 
us this day our daily bread. This is rather to be 
understood in a spiritual sense. For Christ is our 
bread, because Christ is life, and bread is life; I 
am, says he, the bread of life: and a little before, 
the bread is the Word of the living God, who 
came down from heaven. Then, again, because 
his body is judged* (to be) in the bread; this is 
my body. Therefore, by praying for daily bread, 
we pray for perpetuity in Christ, and an indissolu- 
ble connexion with his body.”+ 

The application of our Lord’s words, “ this is 
my body,” in this latter passage, together with 
others of a similar sort to be found in the writings 
of the fathers, sufficiently justify the observation 
which I have already made, that they apply to 
sacramental manducation what they understood 
to be originally intended of spiritual. 

Cyprian, who reverenced Tertullian as his mas- 


riorum pabulorum, memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes A°gyp- 
tiorum preverterant divine vocationi. Igitur conversus ad cogitatus 
illorum, quia senserat dispergendos, caro, ait, nihil prodest. Quid 
hoc ad destruendam carnis resurrectionem ?—Tert., de Resurrectione 
Carnis, cap. xxxvii., Opera, p. 347, edit. Rigalt, Paris, 1675. 

* The original word is censetur, the ambiguity of which I have 
endeavoured to,express by the word judge. Johnson does not scru- 
ple to render it “‘ authoritatively declared !”” chap. ii., sec. v., p. 365. 

+ Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, spiritualiter potius 
intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est ; quia vita Christus, et 
vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis vite. Et paulo supra; panis est 
sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit de ccelis. Tum quod et corpus ejus in 
pane censetur, hoc est corpus meum. Itaque, petendo panem quoti- 
dianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo et individuitatem a 
corpore ejus.— De Oratore, cap. vi., p. 131, 132. 


118 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


ter, affords another illustration of this remark, by 
applying expressions taken from this chapter to a 
right participation of Christ in the eucharist. But 
his language by no means sanctions the conclu- 
sion, that he considered the discourse as original- 
ly and directly intended of this sacrament. In 
his treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, he comments on 
the petition, “Give us this day our daily bread,” 
as follows: “ This may be understood both spirit- 
ually and in its simple meaning; each sense, by 
the divine blessing, conducing to our welfare. 
For Christ is the bread of life, and this bread is 
peculiarly ours. And as we say, our Father, be- 
cause he is the Father of those who understand 
and believe, so also we call (him) our bread, be- 
cause Christ is the bread of us who are intimate- 
ly conjoined with his body. But we pray that 
this bread be given to us daily, lest we, who are 
in Christ and receive the eucharist daily as the 
food of our salvation, should be separated from 
Christ’s body, inasmuch as, on occasion of some 
more grievous fault, being debarred from commu- 
nicating, we are prohibited from the heavenly 
bread. For he himself proclaims and admonishes, 
‘I, who came down from heaven, am the bread 
of life. If any one eat of my bread, he shall live 
forever. But the bread which I will give is my 
flesh for the life of the world.’ When, therefore, 
he says, if any one eat of this bread he shall live 
forever, as it is manifest that those live who be- 
long to his body, and receive the eucharist with a 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 119 


right to communicate; so, on the other hand, it is 
to be feared and deprecated, lest any one, being 
debarred, should be separated from Christ’s body, 
should remain at a distance from salvation, he 
himself employing the threatening language, ‘ Ex- 
cept ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man and 
shall drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.*”* 

The application of the prayer for daily bread 
to the eucharist is almost universal with the fa- 
thers, and yet it is hardly to be supposed that they 
understood this as the direct and original purport 
of the petition as taught by our Lord to his apos- 
tles during his lifetime. Being a prayer for sus- 
tenance of the whole man, both soul and body, 
they understood it to comprehend a reference to 
all the means by which such sustenance might be 
obtained. And thus Cyprian, in the above quota- 
tion, intending to represent Christ himself as spir- 
itually our food, and considering this heavenly 
sustenance as particularly given in the Lord’s 
supper, directs the attention of his hearers espe- 
cially to the eucharist. 


* “ Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Quod potest et 
spiritaliter et simpliciter intelligi, quia et uterque intellectus utilitate 
divina proficit ad salutem. Nam panis vite Christus est, et panis hic 
omnium non est, sed noster est. Et quomodo dicimus pater noster, 
quia intelligentium et credentium pater est; sic et panem nostrum 
vocamus, quia Christus, noster qui corpus ejus contingimus, panis 
est. Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui in 
Christo sumus, et eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, 
intereedente aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non commu- 
nicantes a celesti pane prohibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, ipso 
predicante et monente: ego sum panis vite qui de celo descendi; 
81 quis ederit deo me pane, vivet in eternum ; panis autem quem ego 


120 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


Ciement of Alexandria cites several passages 
from this chapter, and comments on them. After 
speaking of the difference between milk and meat 
as figuratively used for spiritual food, with an ev- 
ident reference to 1 Cor., il., 2, he proceeds to 
say : “The Lord in the Gospel according to John 
hath explained such food by symbols, saying, eat 
my flesh and drink my blood, expressing, under 
the allegory of something that might be drunk, 
the clearness of faith and of the promise, by 
which the Church, like a man, consisting of many 
members, is watered and increased, and most 
closely compacted of both, faith as the body and 


hope as the soul, as also the Lord, of flesh and 
blood.”* 


dedero caro mea est pro seculi vita. Quando ergo dicit, in eternum 
vivere si quis ederit de ejus pane, ut manifestum est eos vivere qui 
corpus ejus attingunt et eucharistiam jure communicationis acci- 
piunt, ita contra timendum est et orandum, ne dum quis abstentus 
separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute; comminante 
ipso et dicente, nisi ederitis carnem filii hominis et biberitis sanguinem 
ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis.”—De Oratione Dominica, Opera, 
Oxon., 1682, p. 146, 147. 

* Tyv toravoe tpogyy adAdyobt dé 6 Kupioc, év TS kata lwdv- 
vv évayyeniv, ETépwe éjHveyKev did ovubdAwy* ddyecbe pov Ta¢ 
oupkag, einov, kal mieobe ov TO diya* évapyé¢ Tic mioTews Kal 
Tig émayyeAiag TO TéTWOY GAAnyopdy, OV Ov 7H éxxAnoia, Kad- 
wep UvOpwroc, ék TOAAGY ovvectynKtia peAGy, Gpderat Te Kal avé- 
ETAL, OvyKpoTeirat Te Kal ovurHnyvuTat, & dugowv: odpuarog per, 
THe TicTEwc, Puyne de, Tig ~EAmidoc* Gorep kat 6 Kvpioe, ék oap- 
ko¢ Kal Giuatoc.—Pedag., lib. i., cap. vi., p. 100, edit. Sylburg. Lu- 
tetiz (Paris), 1629. The construction and meaning of évapyéc is net 
clearto me. WatTERLAND translates thus: ‘“allegorically signifying 
the clear liquor of faith and of the promise ;” making it qualify 76 
warusov, p. 158. Taser renders it adverbially : <‘he evidently is al- 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 121 


In the same chapter Clement expresses himself 
thus: “The Word is all things to the infant, both 
father and mother, and preceptor and nourisher. 
Eat, says he, my flesh, and drink my blood. This 
suitable nutriment for us the Lord supplies. He 
reaches forth flesh and pours out blood, and no- 
thing is needed for the growth of the infants. O 
wonderful mystery! He commands us to put off 
the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nour- ° 
ishment, and to partake of the other new food of 
Christ ; him, if possible, receiving, to lay up with- 
in ourselves, and to enclose the Saviour in the 
breast, in order to render sound the affections of 
our flesh.”* It can hardly be doubted that in 


legorizing the drinkableness of faith,” &c.—Christ’s Discourse at 
Capernaum fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, 8vo, p. 113. 
So also Johnson, p. 360, who introduces it in the midst of a subse- 
quent passage of Clement, and then remarks that the author whose 
view he is opposing “ only produces” a part “ of this paragraph !” 
Wuirtsy, to whom he probably refers, quotes the passage, but gives 
no translation of the word: “he allegorically meant the drinking of 
faith and of the promises.”—On v.53, 54, 7thly. The Bishop of Lin- 
coln, too (Dr. Kaye), seems to take no notice of this word. Perhaps 
he considered it as redundant: ‘signifying allegorically by that 
which is drunk the faith and promise,” &c.—Account of the Wri- 
tings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, London, 1835, 8vo, p. 
386. It is not improbable that évapyé¢ may be intended to denote 
the life and vigour of true faith. 

* "O Abyog Ta TavTa TO vyTiw, Kai TaTHpP Kai uNnTHP, Kal Tal- 
daywyo¢ Kal Tpogevte* gdyecbé pov, dyci, THY capKa, Kal Tieobé 
yov 76 dua. Tatrac jyuiv oikeiac tpopac 6 Kuprog yopnyel, Kat 
capka Opéyet kai dima éxyéer Kai ovdév sig avggotv Tol¢ madioeg 
évdei & Tod mapaddsov pvotnpiov! Amodvoacbar juiv thy maAa- 
Liv Kal oapKiKyny éyKeredeTa GO0pay, GoreEp Kal THY Ta2aLay Tpo- 
ony: Kawvijg O€ GAAne Tie Xpiotév dvaitng peTadapubdvorrag, ékel- 
vor, el dvvatov, dvadagbavoyrac, év éavtotg arotibecbat, Kat TOs 


L 


122 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


this passage the author had in view a spiritual 
eating and drinking, and not merely, if at all, a 
sacramental one. And this must be still farther 
evident to any who will take the trouble candidly 
to examine the whole context. 

The writings of this father contain other pas- 
sages, expressing the union of the true Christian 
with Christ, under the figure of drinking his blood. 
The reader will look in vain for any very lucid 
exposition of our Lord’s discourse, although he 
will most probably acquiesce in the correctness 
of Bishop Kaye’s remark, that while “Clement 
gives various interpretations of Christ’s expres- 
sions in the 6th chapter of St. John’s Gospel re- 
specting his flesh and blood, in no one instance 
does he interpret them literally” (p. 447). In the 
language of the pious, very learned, but mystical 
and allegorizing father himself, “ the Word is often 
employed in an allegorical sense, and so also is 
meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, 
and milk. Att (1s) True Lorp To BE ENJOYED BY 
US WHO BELIEVE oN HIM. ’* ‘This one remark 
shows conclusively that, although he may have 
occasionally expressed his views in an obscure 
and confused manner, his thoughts and affections 
rose above the significative symbols to the bless- 
ed person who was thereby signified. 


owtipa évotepvicacbat: iva Kataptiowuey The capkog nuwy Ta 
ra6n.—Ubi sup., p. 102. 

* TloAAakGe aAdAnyopertat 6 Adyoc, kai Bpdua, kai oaps, kai 
Tp0oH, Kal GpToc, Kai dia, Kal ydda* Gravta 6 Kiptog, ét¢ am6- 
Aavow Huw Tov ét¢ duTov wemtarevKdTav.—P. 105. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 123 


That Oricen did not understand this language 
of our Lord’s discourse at Capernaum in its literal 
sense, is undeniable from his own declaration. 
“There is in the New Testament a letter which 
kills him who does not understand spiritually what 
is said. For if you follow what is said, ‘ Except 
ye eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ according 
to the letter, this letter killeth.”* Accordingly, he 
gives various expositions of the phraseology, but 
always figurative, and states expressly that “ we 
are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only in 
the rite of the sacraments, but also when we re- 
ceive his words, in which life consists, as he him- 
self says, ‘The words which I have spoken are 
spirit and life.’ He, therefore, was wounded [for 
our sinst], whose blood we drink, that is, receive 
the words of his doctrine.” { 

In applying the directions in Exod., xii., 8, seq., 
respecting the passover, to what is said of Christ in 
John, xix., 32-36, 1., 29, and vii., 52, seg., among 
other remarks, he says: “ This is observed by me 


because John, in his Gospel, says, ‘ And the bread 


* Est in Novo Testamento litera, que occidat eum qui non spirita- 
liter que dicuntur adverterit. Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ip- 
sum quod dictum est, nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis 
sanguinem meum, occidit hec litera.—In Levit. Hom., vii., Opera, 
edit. Bened., Paris, 1738, tom. ii., p. 225. 

+ He had just before quoted Isa., liii. 

{¢ Bibere dicimur sanguinem Christi, non solum sacramentorum 
ritu, sed et cum sermones ejus recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, 
sicut et ipse dicit, verba que locutus sum, spiritus et vita est. Est 
ergo ipse vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bibimus, id est, doctrine 
ejus verba suscipimus.—In Num. Hom., xvi., tom. ii., p. 334. 


124 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


which I will give is my flesh for the life of the 
world.’ But now we eat the flesh of the lamb 
and the unleavened bread with bitter herbs, when 
by repenting of our sins we are afflicted with that 
godly sorrow which worketh in us a repentance 
to salvation not to be repented of.”* 

“If 1] suffer persecution and confess my Christ 
before men, I am certain that he also will confess 
me before his Father who is in heaven. If fam- 
ine come, it cannot disturb me; for | have the 
bread of life which comes down from heaven and 
refreshes hungry souls. Neither can that bread 
ever fail, for it is perfect and eternal.” + 

“'They shall not be confounded in the evil sea- 
son, &c. By the evil season is meant the time of 
judgment. And in the days of dearth they shall 
have enough. He calls the days of dearth those 
in which many of the unclean are deprived of the 
bread of him who said, I am the bread mt came 
down from heaven.” { 

* Tovro dé pot TeTHpHTat Od TO Kal év TH Kata lwavyny A€yecBat 
kal 6 aptog 0é bv éyO ddow, 7 caps pod Ectiv brép THE TOD KOcMOV 
Come: nTot dé da Tag éxl Toi¢ duapTHuaoly Huwy pETavoiag THY 
kata Seov ATHY AvrovMmEVwY, METAVOLAY EL OwWTNPiay ameTaLeAn- 
Tov nuiv épyalouerny, eri mixpidwy écOiowev Kpéa Tod ayvod, Kai 
Ta dvywa.—Comment. in Johan., tom. x.; Opera, tom. iv., p. 177. 

+ Persecutionem si patiar et confitear Christum meum coram hom- 
inibus, certus sum quia et ille me confitebitur coram patre suo qui in 
celis est. Fames si affuerit, turbare me non potest; habeo enim 
panem vite qui de celo descendit et reficit animas esurientes. Nec 
aliquando potest panis iste deficere, est enim perfectus et eternus. 
—Comment. in Epist. ad Rom., lib. vii., tom. iv., p. 607. 

t Od katatcyvvOjoovrar év Kalp rovnp@, kai Tr. &.) Karpov 
rovnpov A€éyet TOV THE Kpicewe ypdvov, Kal év Huépate Aruod yop- 


- pa 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 125 


“ Man did eat angels’ bread, &c.] The Saviour 
says, ‘I am the bread that came down from heav- 
en.’ This, bread, therefore, was formerly eaten 
by angels, but is now by men. To eat, in this 
place, signifies to know. For the mind eats what 
it knows, and what it doth not know it doth not 
eat.-* 

“ If we speak those things that are perfect, that 
are robust, that are of the stronger sort, we set 
before you the flesh of the Word of God to be 
eaten.’ 

On Matthew, xxvi., 19, Origen applies language 
in this chapter to the Lord’s Supper. Speaking 
of a spiritual understanding of the law, he says, 
that “ by a spiritual celebration we fully perform 
all that is therein commanded to be done bodily. 
For we put away the old leaven of malice and 
wickedness, and celebrate the passover in the un- 
leavened bread of sincerity and truth; Christ 
feasting along with us, according to the will of 
the Lamb, who saith, ‘Except ye shall eat my 


tacOjoovtat. ‘Huépag Ayod dvoudler év dig TOAAOL THv axabaprav 
OTEpickovTal Tov dpTov Tod éimévTOg: eye ext 6 GpToc 6 AKO TOD dv- 
pavov karabdc.—Selecta in Psal. (xxxvi., 19), Opera, tom. il., p. 654. 

* *Aprov ayyédwv Epayev GvOpwroc, Kal T. €.] ‘O ZwTnp ono: 
éy@ eye 6 aproc 6 éx TOD dvpavod Katabac. TodTov duv Tov apTtov 
joOtov piv mpdtepov ayyehot, vuvi dé kal avOpwror. TO ecbiew 
évtadOa 70 yivdoketv onuaiver: TovTo yap éaGier vode 6 dé ywvo- 
Okel, Kal TODTO OvK éoOier 6 Ov yivdoKxet.—lIbid., p. 771. Compare, 
also, on Isaiah, Hom. iii.,; Opera, tom. iii., p. 111. 

+ “Si perfecta loquimur, si robusta, si fortiora, carnes vobis Verbi 
Dei apponimus comedendas.”"—In Num., Hom. xxiii., Opera, tom ii., 
p. 359. 


L2 


126 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


flesh and drink my blood, ye shall not have life in 
you.’ 99% 

The next writer to be adduced is,Aveustin, 
the celebrated Bishop of Hippo. 

“ They said to him, ‘ What shall we do that we 
may work the work of God? For he had said to 
them, ‘Work for the food that doth not perish, but 
endureth to eternal life.’ ‘ What shall we do?’ say 
they ; ‘by observing what shall we be able fully to 
perform this precept?’ Jesus answered and said 
to them, ‘ This is the work of God, that ye believe 
on him whom he hath sent.’ This, therefore, is to 
eat the meat that doth not perish, but endureth to 
eternal life. Why do you prepare the teeth and 
stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.—No one 
fulfils the law but he who is aided by grace, that 
is, the bread which comes down from heaven. 
Love is the fulfilling of the law, the compendium 


* «Spiritaliter celebrantes implemus omnia que illic corporaliter 
celebranda mandantur. Expellimus enim vetus fermentum malitie 
et nequitiz, et in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebramus pascha, 
Christo nobiscum coepulante secundum voluntatem agni dicentis, 
nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non 
habebitis vitam manentem in vobis.”—In Matt. Comment., tom. iii., 
p. 896. Compare, also, p. 899, and see p. 837, where the same appli- 
cationis made. The passage from Origen, above given, is quoted by 
Aquinas in his Catena on St. Matthew. But the reader will bear in 
mind that, both in the original Latin of the “‘ Angelical Doctor,” and 
also in the translation, published at Oxford in 1842, of the “ Aurea 
Catena” (recommended for family use !), the clause, ‘‘ Christ feasting 
along with us,” is omitted. It is, however, highly important, as it 
bears upon Origen’s view of the meaning of John, vi., 54, and shows 
it to be figurative and spiritual—See Divi THom# Aqotnartis, Doct. 
Angel., Ordin. Predic., Opera, Venet., 1775, 4to, tom. v., p. 380. 
English translation, p. 887. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 127 


of it, as the apostle says, ‘ Love, not of money, but 
of God; love, not of earth, not of heaven, but of 
him who made heaven and earth. Whence is 
this love toman? Let us hear him: The love of 
God, says he, is poured forth into our hearts by 
the Holy Spirit whom he hath given us. The 
Lord being about to give the Holy Spirit, called 
himself the bread that came down from heaven, 
exhorting us to believe in him. For to believe 
in him, this is to eat the living bread. He who 
believes eats, is invisibly nourished (literally, fat- 
tened), because he is invisibly born again.”* 
After saying, that from various causes many 
may die, notwithstanding the use of ordinary food, 
he remarks: “ But it is not so in this meat and 
drink, that is, in the body and blood of the Lord. 
For he who does not take it (the food, esca, as he 
had before called it) has not life, and he who does 
take it has life, and, indeed, eternal. By this food 
and drink he will denote association with the body 
and his members, which is the holy Church in his 


* As it is unnecessary to quote the whole of the original Latin, lL 
shall limit myself to those parts which have a direct bearing on the 
subject. ‘‘Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille. 
Hoc est ergo manducare cibum non qui perit, sed qui permanet in vi- 
tam eternam. Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et mandu- 
casti."—In Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract. xxv., § 12, edit. Bened., 
tom. iii., pars ii., Ant. 1700, p.354. ‘Nemo implet legem, nisi quem 
adjuverit gratia, id est panis qui de celo descendit. Daturus ergo 
Dominus Spiritum Sanctum, dixit se panem qui de ceelo descendit, 
hortans ut credamus in eum. Credere enim in eum, hoc est mandu- 
care panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat; invisibiliter saginatur, 
quia invisibiliter renascitur.”—Ibid., Trac. xxvi., § 1., p. 357, 358. 


128 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


predestinated, and called, and justified, and glori- 
fied saints, and faithful ones—The sacrament of 
this thing, that is, of the union with (or unity of) 
the body and blood of Christ, is prepared, in some 
places daily, in others after intervals of some days, 
at the Lord’s table, and received from the Lord’s 
table, by some to life, by others to destruction ; 
but the thing itself of which it is the sacrament, 
to every man who partakes of it for life, to none 
for destruction.”* 

“Finally, he now explains how that may be 
done of which he speaks, and what it is to eat his 
body and drink his blood. He that eateth my 
flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I 
in him. To abide in Christ, and to have him abi- 
ding in us, is, therefore, what is meant by eating 
that food and drinking that drink. And, conse- 
qaently, he who does not abide in Christ, and in 
whom Christ does not abide, undoubtedly does 
not spiritually eat his flesh nor drink his blood, al- 
though carnally and visibly he press with his teeth 
the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood; but 


* ¢ In hoc vero cibo et potu, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini, non 
ita est. Nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet vitam; et qui eam 
sumit, habet vitam, et hanc utiqie eternam. MHunc itaque cibum et 
potum societatem vult inteiligi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod 
est sancta ecclesia in predestinatis, et vocatis, et justificatis, et glori- 
ficatis sanctis, et fidelibus ejus.—Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, uni- 
tatis corporis et sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis in- 
tervallis dierum, in Dominica mensa preparatur, et de mensa Domi- 
nica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium ; res vera 
ipsa cujus sacramentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium 
quicumque ejus particeps fuerit.”—Ibid, § 15, p. 362. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 129 


rather eats and drinks the sacrament of so great 
a thing to his condemnation.”* 

On verse 63: “ They thought he was about to 
distribute his own body, but he said that he was 
about to ascend into heaven, and, indeed, entire. 
When you shall see the Son of Man ascend where 
he was before, then certainly you will see that he 
does not distribute his own body in the way you 
think ; then certainly you will understand that his 
grace is not consumed by bites.” 

He concludes by urging as the all-important 
point, “ that we be careful not to receive (literally 
eat) the flesh of Christ and the blood of Christ only 
in the sacrament, which many even bad men do; 
but to eat and drink so as to partake of the Spirit, 
so as to abide in the Lord’s body as members, so 
as to grow strong by his Spirit.” 

* “Denique jam exponit quomodo id fiat quod loquitur, et quid 
sit manducare corpus ejus, et sanguinem bibere. Qui manducat, 
etc. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam et illum bibere potum, in 
Christo manere et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non 
manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec 
manducat [spiritaliter] carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem [licet 
carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et san- 
guinis Christi]; sed majis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi 
manducat et bibit.”—Ibid., § 18, p. 362. The words enclosed in 
brackets are in the printed editions, but are not contained in any of 
the manuscripts used by the Benedictine editor. 

+ “Illi putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, ille autem dixit se 
adscensurum in ceelum, utique integrum. Cum videritis filium hom- 
inis adscendentem ubi erat prius, certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo 
modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis 
quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus.”—Ibid., xxvii., § 3. 

t “Hoc ergo totum ad hoc nobis valeat, delectissimi, ut carnem 


Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento, 
ouod et multi mali; sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manduce- 


130 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


In his treatise on Christian Doctrine, the same 
father comments on the 53d verse thus: “ Unless 
ye eat, &c. He seems to order a crime or wick- 
edness. It is, therefore, a figure, enjoining on us 
to communicate in the Lord’s passion, and sweet- 
ly and usefully to lay up in memory that his flesh 
was crucified and wounded for us.”* 

These passages prove that Augustin did not re- 
gard the eucharist as directly and primarily in- 
tended by our Lord in this discourse ; but doubt- 
less he considered the eating and drinking there- 
in urged as most effectually performed by the be- 
liever through that sacrament. Hence he some- 
times employs the language of the discourse as he 
would have done if he had understood it to refer 
directly to the eucharist, and passages to this ef- 
fect have been adduced in support of the charge 
of inconsistency, while, perhaps, they merely 
show a want of accuracy and fulness in the ex- 
position of his views. One of the most remarka- 
ble occurs in his treatise on the desert and remis 
sion of sins and the baptism of infants, in which 
he endeavours to prove the necessity of giving 
the eucharist even to them. “Let us hear the 
Lord, I say, speaking not of the sacrament of the 


mus et bibamus, ut in Domini corpore tanquaam membra maneamus, 
ut ejus Spiritu vegetemur.”—Ibid., § 11. 

* « Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere: figura est ergo, precipiens 
passioni Dominice communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recon- 
dendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata 
sit.’.—De Doct. Christ., lib. iii., cap. xvi., § 24, Opera, tom. iii., pars 
1., p. 40. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 131 


laver, but of that of his holy table, unless ye eat 
my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall have no 
life in you.” And after quoting Titus, ii., 5, in 
reference to baptism, and John, vi., 51, 538, as di- 
rectly referable to the eucharist, he infers the ne- 
cessity of both these sacraments to the salvation 
of infants as well as adults. “ Neither salvation 
nor life eternal is to be expected for any one with- 
out baptism and the body and blood of the Lord ; 
in vain, without these, is it promised to infants.”* 

The controversial character of this work may 
account, in part, for such an extravagant position, 
although it affords no sufficient apology for it. In 
his sermons, also, on St. John’s Gospel, he applies 
language taken from the sixth chapter to the eu- 
charist, while, at the same time, it is evident that 
he considers the spiritual eating and drinking as 
what is chiefly intended, the eucharist being only 
the sacrament of this. Whether he meant to in- 
struct his hearers that the discourse was directly 
intended of the Lord’s Supper, or that indirectly 
it includes it as a principal means of grace, or is 
only applicable to it, admits of doubt. I leave the 
settlement of this point to those who are well 
versed in the voluminous writings of Augustin, 


* «“Dominum audiamus, inquam, non quidem hoc de sacramento 
lavacri dicentem, sed de sacramento sancte mense sue : nisi man- 
ducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum non habebi- 
tis vitam in vobis.—Nec salus nec vita eterna sine baptismo et cor 
pore et sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his 
promittitur parvulis.” Da pec. merit. et remiss., lib. 1., Cap. Xx. 
xxiv., § 26, 34, Opera, tom. x., p. 10, 13. 


132 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


and of the fathers in general. If I may venture 
to express an opinion founded on but imperfect 
knowledge, I should be inclined to believe that 
the good bishop is not very accurate in explaining 
his views; and that, in common with the fathers 
of the second, third, and fourth centuries, he often 
applies certain Scriptural expressions to some one 
definite point, while he would by no means have 
maintained that such point was intended by the 
original writer or speaker. This last remark has 
a bearing on the whole subject of quotations, not 
excepting several of those which are found in the 
New Testament. , 

“ As we have heard in the reading of the Gos- 
pel, the Lord Jesus Christ exhorted to eat his flesh 
and to drink his blood, with the promise of eternal 
life. Not all of you who heard this have never- 
theless understood its meaning. Ye who are bap- 
tized and faithful know what he meant.”* This is 
certainly intended of the eucharist, the mysteries 
which were concealed from catechumens and or- 
dinary hearers. He then proceeds to urge the 
exhortation of St. Paul in 1 Cor., xi., 29, and to 
apply the language of John, vi., 56,57. In his 
previous sermon, he remarks that the body and 
blood of Christ are life to every one, but imme- 

* « Sicut audivimus, cum sanctum Evangelium legeretur, Dominus 
Jesus Christus exhortatus est promissione vite eterne ad mandu- 
candam carnem suam et bibendum sanguinem suum. Qui audistis 
hec, nondum omnes intellexistis. Qui enim baptizati et fideles estis, 


quid dixerit nostis.”—Sermo exxxii., de verbis Evang. Johan. 6, Ope- 
ra, tom. v., p. 449, 450. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 1338 


diately adds the qualification, “if what is visibly 
taken in the sacrament is also spiritually eaten 
and drunk in very truth.”* This he illustrates by 
quoting the 63d and 64th verses. 

Jerome, in his epistle to Hedibia, explaining 
Matt., xxvi., 29, does call “the Lord’s body” (in 
the eucharist) “the bread that came down from 
heaven.” But it must be evident to every reader 
that the whole tenor of the place is figurative. 
He does not hesitate to say, that “the patriarch 
Jacob desired to eat this bread when he said, ‘ If 
the Lord God will be with me, and give me bread 
to eat and raiment to put on.’ For as many of 
us as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ, 
and eat angels’ bread, and hear the Lord pro- 
claiming, ‘ My meat is to do the will of the Father 
who sent me, and to finish his work.’ Let us, 
therefore, do the will of him that sent us, the Fa- 
ther, and finish his work, and Christ will drink 
his own blood with us in the kingdom of the 
Church.” + 

On Isaiah, lxvi., 17: “ Tropologically we may 


* “Tune autem hoc erit, id est, vita unicuique erit corpus et san 
guis Christi, si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur in ipsa veritate 
spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur.”—Ibid., Sermo. cxxxi., 
p. 447. 

+ “Hune panem et Jacob patriarcha comedere cupiebat, dicens, si 
fuerit Dominus, &c. Quotquot enim in Christo baptizamur, Chris- 
tum induimus, et panem comedimus angelorum, et audimus Domi- 
num praedicantem, meus cibus est, etc. Faciamus igitur volunta- 
tem ejus qui misit nos Patris, et impleamus opus ejus ; et Christus 
nobiscum bibet in regno ecclesia sanguinem suum.”—Ad Hedib., Ope- 
ra, edit. Bened., Paris, 1706, tom. iv., pars 1, p. 172. 

: R/ 
Po 


134 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


give the meaning thus: All lovers of pleasure 
rather than of God are sanctified in gardens and 
in thresholds, because the mysteries of truth can- 
not enter, and they eat the food of impiety while 
they are not holy in body and soul; neither do 
they eat the flesh of Jesus nor drink his blood, of 
which he says, ‘He that eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood hath eternal life.’ For Christ, 
our passover, is sacrificed; who is eaten not 
without, but in one house and within :’* meaning, 
I presume, in the Church and in the heart. 

“We read the Holy Scriptures. I suppose the 
Gospel to be the body of Jesus, the Holy Scrip- 
tures his doctrine. And when he says, he that 
doth not eat my flesh and drink my blood, al- 
though it may also be understood in the mystery, 
yet the word of the Scriptures, the divine doc- 
trine, is more truly the body of Christ and his 
blood. If, when we go to the mystery—he that is 
faithful understands—if one falls into sin, he is in 
peril. If, when we hear the word of God, and the 
word of God and the flesh of Christ and his blood 
is poured into our ears, and we are thinking of 
something else, how great danger do we incur !”+ 


* “ Secundum tropologiam possumus dicere, omnes voluptatis ma- 
jis amatores quam amatores Dei sanctificari in hortis et in liminibus, 
quia mysteria veritatis non valent introire, et comedere cibos impie- 
tatis, dum non sunt sancti corpore et spiritu; nec comedunt carnem 
Jesu, neque bibunt sanguinem ejus. De quo ipse loquitur, qui com- 
edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, habet vitam zternam. 
Etenim pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Qui non foris, sed in 
domo una et intus comeditur.”—Comment. in Isa. Proph., lib. xviii., 
tom. iii., p. 506. : 

t “ Legimus sanctas scriptures. Ego corpus Jesu Evangelium 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 1385 


I conclude this representation by a quotation 
from one of the epistles of Basin: “ Whosoever 
eateth me, he says, liveth by me. For we eat his 
flesh and drink his blood, being made partakers, 
through his incarnation and natural life, of the 
Word and of wisdom. For his whole mystical 
sojourn in the flesh he calls flesh and blood, and 
his doctrine, consisting of practical, and natural, 
and theological, he manifested, by which the soul 
is nourished.”* 

From these quotations, and from many others 
which the writings of the fathers afford, it is evi- 
dent that the minds of these holy men dwelt upon 
a spiritual union with Christ, in which their great 


puto; sanctas scripturas puto doctrinam ejus. Et quando dicit, qui 
non comederit carnem meam et biberit sanguinem meum, licet in 
mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi et sanguis ejus 
sermo scripturarum est, doctrina divina est. Si quando imus ad mys- 
terlum—dqui fidelis est intelligit—si in maculam ceciderit, periclita- 
tur. Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei et caro Christi 
et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, 
in quantum periculum incurrimus!”—Breviarium in Psalt., cxlvii., 
3, Opera, tom. ii., Appendix, p. 504. : 

* “'O tpdyuv pé, ono, Cyoetat Ou’ tué* Tp@youev yap auTov THY 
odpka, Kal rivowev avTod TO diya, KoLvwvod. yivduevor Ova THE evav- 
Oparnoewc, Kai Tie aLoOnTiC CwHe TOU Adyou Kai THe codiag’ Cap- 
ka yap Kal dia naoav avtod Thy prvotixny éxidnuiav dvouace * 
kal THY éx TMpaKTLKTC Kai gvotKi¢ Kai SeoAoytKac ovveotdoayr Ou- 
_dackariav édjiwoe, bv Ho TpédeTat Wuy7y.”—Epis. 141, Opera, edit. 
Paris, 1618, tom. ii., p. 928. I have translated duc@yrH¢ by natural. 
Its literal meaning is perceived by the senses. 

Other citations from the fathers may be found in the works already 
mentioned, and also in L’ARRoquUE’s History of the Eucharist, part 
il., chap.iv. This curious and valuable work was originally written 
in French, a translation of which, in one quarto volume, was publish- 
ed in London in 1684. 


136 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


happiness consisted, and that they understood our 
Lord’s language to be intended of this. It is also 
evident that they considered this union as effect- 
ed and maintained, in a great degree, through the 
instrumentality of the sacraments which Christ 
had instituted, and therefore applied language ex- 
pressive of the spiritual union to those means of 
advancing it, without particularly and critically 
defining the meaning and appropriating the appli- 
cation of every phrase. They were rather intent 
on the thing itself, than fastidious in choosing the 
terms whereby to express it.—See Appendiz. 

I shall conclude this Essay by referring to a few 
of the most prominent divines, in order to show 
that the general views already presented coincide 
with those of our best standard writers. 

I omit the comments of Carvin, Lutruer, and 
Me tancruovn, illustrious names in the Church, cha- 
racterized respectively by far-reaching thought, 
by boldness in defence of truth, and by a meek- 
ness of wisdom and extent of learning seldom 
equalled. It is unnecessary to adduce their testi- 
mony in detail. It may be considered as com- 
prehended in the language of the very learned 
and laborious Geruarp: “ What is said in John, 
vi., 58, does not relate to the sacramental. but 
spiritual eating and drinking of the body and 
blood of Christ, which is necessary for the salva- 
tion ofall.”* The language of Erasmus, however, 


* “Dictum Joh., vi., 53, non de sacramentali sed spirituali corpo- 
ris et sanguinis Christi manducatione et bibitione tractat, que om 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 137 


is most especially worthy of the reader’s atten- 
tion, as he cannot be supposed to be a prejudiced 
witness, and few will venture to accuse him of 
incompetency. His notes on this chapter are, in- 
deed, meager and very brief. Perhaps he did not 
choose to express himself fully. But he does ex- 
pressly say, on verse 51, “if any one eat of this 
bread he shall live forever, that the ancients in- 
terpret this passage of heavenly doctrine.”* Cam- 
ERON, a very learned and able commentator, ob- 
serves, on verse 53, that the language here and 
elsewhere employed denotes “ the power and effi- 
cacy of faith, by which we are united to Christ.” 
James Caret says of the same verse: “These 
words plainly show that it was the duty of Christ’s 
hearers at that time to have eaten his flesh, and 
therefore that this discourse is not to be restricted 
to a manducation in the eucharist or by the mouth, 
but that the body of Christ is to be eaten spirit- 
ually; and this is abundantly confirmed by the 
whole series of the discourse.” 

The same view is given by the most distin- 
guished divines of the English Church. The com- 


nibus ad salutem necessaria est.”—-De Sacra Cena, cap. xxi., § 230, 
p. 190. Loc. Theol., tom. v. Franc. et Hamb., 1657. 

* « Hunc locum veteres interpretantur de doctrina celesti.”—Crit. 
Sac. on John, tom. vi., p. 115, edit. Amst., 1698. 

t+ “His locutionibus significatur fidei vis et efficacia qua unimur 
Christo.”—Ibid., p. 125. 

t “‘Hec verba perspicue docent jam tum debuisse Christi carnem 
ab auditoribus manducari, eoque non esse restringendam hanc orati- 
onem ad manducationem eucharisticam oralemve, sed spiritualiter 
esse manducandum Christi corpus: quod et tota series orationis 
abunde confirmat.”—Ibid., p. 130. 


M 2 


138 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


mentary of Wuirsy is accessible to all, and his 
exposition is so well known as to make any cita- 
tions superfluous. His learned predecessor, Dr. 
Hammonp, paraphrases the 47th and 48th verses 
thus: “ He that embraceth my doctrine, and is 
sincerely my disciple, to believe and practice 
what I command him, shall undoubtedly live for- 
ever, as having fed on that enlivening bread, verse 
33, receiving me his spiritual food by his faith into 
his soul.” On the 50th and 51st he remarks: 
“The bread which is now sent you down from 
heaven will give immortality to them that feed on 
it, that is, to all that truly believe in Christ, that 
receive his doctrine, and digest it into the food 
and nourishment of their souls— Whosoever feed- 
eth, that is, believeth on me, embraceth my doc- 
trine, and practiseth accordingly, shall not die; 
the soul whose food I am shall become immortal 
in bliss.” So, also, on verse 53: “ Except you 
thus feed on this celestial food, that is, be sincere 
disciples of the crucified Saviour ;” and on verse 
56: “He that thus feedeth or believeth on me, 
that resigns himself up to be ruled by me, is so 
made a member of me, that, by the life which is 
in me, he shall also be enlivened by God, by whom 
I live.” On verse 63: “ It is not the gross carnal 
eating of his body of flesh that he could speak of, 
but certainly a more spiritual divine eating or 
feeding on him; his words (see verse 68), that is, 
his doctrine, being spiritually fed on by them, that 
is, being received into their hearts,” &c. On the 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 139 


next verse, for the words, “ there are some of you 
that believe not,” he substitutes, “ for this spiritual 
feeding, sinking down this spiritual food into your 
hearts, there are some of you that are far enough 
from doing so.” He expresses himself, also, to 
the same effect in his note, speaking of the “ food 
which endureth to everlasting life,” as “that doc- 
trine of his which is food for their souls, and that 
grace which should be purchased by his death ;” 
of “ faith, here expressed by feeding on this spir- 
itual food, not only eating, but digesting and turn- 
ing it into the nourishment of our souls.” He 
does not even allude to the eucharist, and evident- 
ly does not consider the discourse as originally 
intended of it, although undoubtedly he never 
meant to deny that the spiritual feeding on Christ 
by faith in that holy ordinance is comprehended 
within the terms of the general command. 

In the same way, Bisuor Breveriper represents 
the general sense of our Lord’s expressions in this 
chapter. After quoting several verses, and closing 
with the 63d, he proceeds thus: “ Whereby he 
plainly discovered that all that he had said con- 
cerning eating his flesh and drinking his blood is 
to be understood only in a spiritual sense. Not 
that we could eat that very flesh which he as- 
sumed, and drink that very blood which was spilt 
upon the cross; that is so absurd and impossible, 
that no man in his senses can take his words in 
such a carnal sense as that. But his meaning is, 
that he, having taken our flesh upon him, and 


140 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


offered it up, together with the blood thereof, as a 
sacrifice for the sins of the world, they who believe 
in him do as really partake of that sacrifice, and 
of all the benefits of it, as if they had eaten of the 
very flesh that was sacrificed, as the Jews did of 
the paschal lamb. By which means, Almighty 
God, being atoned and reconciled to them, gives 
them that Holy Spirit which is united to, and al- 
ways accompanieth, the flesh of Christ, to be a 
standing principle of new life in them, to nourish 
and strengthen them with all true grace and virtue, 
as truly and really as our bodies are fed and sup- 
ported by what we eat and drink. So that the 
whole drift and design of this divine discourse 
is briefly comprehended in that short sentence 
wherewith he begins it, and which may serve asa 
key to open all that follows, saying, ‘ Verily, verily, 
I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath ever- 
lasting life’” verse 47.* He then goes on to re- 
mark, that the eating and drinking in the Lord’s 
Supper is to be understood in the same sense, be- 
ing spiritual and done by faith. 

I have before directed the reader’s attention to 
Dr. Warrruanpb, who defends the same view of 
our Lord’s discourse in his masterly work on the 
eucharist already referred to. These great di- 
vines of the Church of England were distinguished 
even among the learned for their extensive ac- 
quaintance with the fathers, for whose opinions, 


* Sermon on the Preference of Spiritual Food to Natural. Ser- 
mons, vol. v., p. 312, 313, Londen, 1709 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 141 


too, they entertained very high respect. And yet, 
with a thorough knowledge of all that antiquity 
contains on the subject of John, vi., they do not 
hesitate to express themselves as above stated. 
Let, then, the tyro in theology, who, by the help 
of the Latin column, or, it may be, of some mod- 
ern English translation, has succeeded in master- 
ing a few sentences of some Greek father, hesitate, 
with becoming modesty, before he decides against 
the learned judgment of these brightest luminaries 
of their age. 

The following extracts from the writings of the 
most remarkable man of the English reformation 
may forma suitable conclusion. The opinions of 
ArcuBisHop Cranmer were formed after much 
study and careful comparison of the Scriptures 
and fathers. Few divines of any age are com- 
parable to this great man for acquaintance with 
patristical and scholastic theology, and his repre- 
sentations of the views of the early writers of the 
Church merit very particular attention. I trust 
no apology is necessary for the copiousness of the 
following extracts. I give them in the order in 
which they occur in his printed works. 

Purposing to “set forth the very words that 
Christ himself spake both of the eating and drink- 
ing of his body and blood, and also of the eating 
and drinking of the sacrament of the same,” he 
quotes John, vi., of the former, and remarks thus: 
“ As touching this meat and drink of the body and 
blood of Christ, it is true, both he that eateth and 


142 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


drinketh them hath everlasting life, and also he 
that eateth and drinketh them not hath not ever- 
lasting life. For to eat that meat and drink that 
drink, is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ 
dwelling in him.* And therefore no man can 
say or thinkt that he eateth the body of Christ 
or drinketh his blood, except he dwelleth in Christ 
and hath Christ dwelling in him. Thus have ye 
heard of the eating and drinking of the very flesh 
and blood of our Saviour Christ.” 

He then proceeds to the latter point. “Now 
as touching the sacraments of the same, our Sav- 
iour Christ did institute them in bread and wine 
at his last supper which he had with his apostles 
the night before his death.” 

“Christ in that place in John spake not of the 
material and sacramental bread, nor of the sac- 
ramental eating (for that was spoken two or three 
years before the sacrament was first ordained$), 
but he spake of spiritual bread, many times re- 
peating, I am the bread of life which came from 
heaven, and of spiritual eating by faith, after which 
sort he was at the same present time eaten of as 


* Augustin in Joan., Tract. 26. 

+ Aug., de Civitate, lib. 21, cap. 25. 

t The Remains of Tuomas Cranm_Er, D.D., Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, collected and arranged by the Rev. Henry Jenxyns, M.A., 
in four volumes. Oxford, vol. ii., p. 292,293. A Defence of the true 
and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
our Saviour Christ, book i., chap. ii., iil. 

§ This is a mistake, as the discourse was delivered at Capernaum 
about a year before the institution of the eucharist, namely, near the 
passover preceding the last. See John, vi., 4. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 143 


many as believed on him, although the sacrament 
was not at that time made and instituted. And 
therefore he said, ‘ Your fathers did eat manna in 
the desert, and died; but he that eateth this bread 
shall live forever.’ Therefore, this place of St. 
John can in no wise be understood of the sacra- 
mental bread, which neither came from heaven, 
neither giveth life to all that eat it. Nor of such 
bread could Christ have then presently said, this 
is my flesh; except they will say that Christ did 
then consecrate so many years before, the institu- 
tion of his Holy Supper.”* 

“ Wherefore, to all them that by any reasonable 
means will be satisfied, these things before re- 
hearsed are sufficient to prove that the eating of 
Christ’s flesh and drinking of his blood is not to 
be understood simply and plainly as the words do 
properly signify, that we do eat and drink him 
with our mouths; but it is a figurative speech, 
spiritually to be understood, that we must deeply 
print, and fruitfully believe in our hearts, that his 
flesh was crucified and his blood shed for our re- 
demption. And this our belief in him is to eat 
his flesh and to drink his blood, although they be 
not present here with us, but be ascended into 
heaven. As our forefathers, before Christ’s time, 
did likewise eat his flesh and drink his blood, which 
was so far from them, that he was not yet then 
born.” 


* Ibid., book ii., chap. x., p. 338, 339, 
+ Ibid., book iii., chap. x., p. 381, 382. 


144 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


In arguing against Dr. Smith, who alleged the 
6th chapter of St. John in defence of transubstan- 
tiation, he says: “I answer by his own reason. 
Can this promise be verified of sacramental bread ? 
was that given upon the cross for the life of the 
world? I marvel here not a little of Mr. Smith’s 
either dulness or maliciousness, that cannot, or 
will not, see that Christ, in this chapter of St. John, 
spake not of sacramental bread, but of heavenly 
bread ; nor of his flesh only, but also of his blood 
and of his godhead, calling them heavenly bread 
that giveth everlasting life. So that he spake of 
himself wholly, saying, ‘I am the bread of life: he 
that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that 
believeth in me shall not thirst forever. And 
neither spake he of common bread, nor yet of 
sacramental bread; for neither of them was given ° 
upon the cross for the life of the world. 

“ And there can be nothing more manifest than 
that, in this sixth chapter of John, Christ spake not 
of the sacrament of his flesh, but of his very flesh. 
And that, as well for that the sacrament was not 
then instituted, as also that Christ said not in the 
future tense, ‘ The bread which I will give shall 
be my flesh,’ but in the present tense, the bread 
which | will give is my flesh; which sacramental 
bread was neither then his flesh, nor was then in- 
stituted for a sacrament, nor was after given to 
death for the life of the world. 

* But as Christ, when he said unto the woman of 
Samaria. * The water which [ will give shall spring 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 145 


into everlasting life,’ he meant neither of material 
water nor of the accidents of water, but of the 
Holy Ghost, which is the heavenly fountain that 
springeth unto eternal life; so, likewise, when he 
said,‘ The bread which I will give is my flesh, which 
I will give for the life of the world,’ he meant nei- 
ther of the material bread, neither of the accidents 
of bread, but of his own flesh; which, although 
of itself it availeth nothing, yet being in unity of 
person joined unto his divinity, it is the same heav- 
enly bread that he gave to death upon the cross 
for the life of the world.”* 

“The same flesh was also given to be spiritually 
eaten, and was eaten, indeed, before his supper, 
yea, and before his incarnation also. Of which 
eating, and not of sacramental eating, he spake in 
the sixth of John: ‘ My flesh is very meat, and my 
blood is very drink: he that eateth my flesh and 
drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and [ in him.’ ”+ 

“ But your understanding of the sixth chapter of 
John is such as never was uttered of any man be- 
fore your time, and as declareth you to be utterly 
ignorant of God’s mysteries. For who ever said 
or taught before this time, that the sacrament was 
the cause why Christ said, if we eat not the flesh 
of the Son of Man, we have no life in us? The 
spiritual eating of his flesh and drinking of his 
blood by faith, by digesting his death in our minds 


* Vol. ii. The Answer of Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, &c, 
egainst the false Calumniations of Dr. Richard Smyth, p. 9, 10. 
+ Ibid., p. 64. Answer to Gardyner, book 1. 


N 


146 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


as our only price, ransom, and redemption from 
eternal damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ 
said, that if we eat not his flesh and drink not his 
blood, we have not life in us; and if we eat his 
flesh and drink his blood, we have everlasting life. 
And if Christ had never ordained the sacrament, 
yet should we have eaten his flesh and drunken 
his blood, and have had thereby everlasting life, 
as all the faithful did before the sacrament was or- 
dained, and do daily when they receive not the 
sacrament. And so did the holy men that wan- 
dered in the wilderness, and in all their lifetime 
very seldom received the sacrament, and many 
holy martyrs, either exiled or kept in prison, did 
daily feed of the food of Christ’s body, and drank 
daily the blood that sprang out of his side (or else 
they could not have had everlasting life, as Christ 
himself said in the Gospel of St. John), and yet 
they were not suffered, with other Christian peo- 
ple, to have the use of the sacrament. 

“ And that, in the sixth of John, Christ spake nei- 
ther of corporeal nor sacramental eating of his 
flesh, the time manifestly showeth. For Christ 
spake of the same present time that was then, say- 
ing, ‘The bread which I will give is my flesh: and 
he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, 
dwelleth in me and I in him, and hath everlasting 
life.” At which time the sacramental bread was 
not yet Christ’s flesh, for the sacrament was not 
then yet ordained ; and yet, at that time, all that 
believed in Christ did eat his flesh and drink his 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 147 


blood, or else they could not have dwelled in 
Christ, nor Christ in them. 

“ Moreover, you say yourself, that in the sixth 
of St. John’s Gospel, when Christ said, the bread 
is my flesh, by the word ‘flesh’ he meant his 
whole humanity, as is meant in this sentence, the 
Word was made flesh; which he meant not of 
the word ‘body,’ when he said of bread, this is 
my body, whereby he meant not his whole hu- 
manity, but his flesh only, and neither his blood nor 
his soul. And in the sixth of John, Christ made 
not bread his flesh when he said, the bread is my 
flesh ; but he expounded in those words what 
bread it was that he meant of, when he promised 
them bread that should give them eternal life. 
He declared in those words, that himself was the 
bread that should give life, because they should 
not have their phantasies of any bread made of 
corn. And so the eating of that heavenly bread 
could not be understood of the sacrament, nor of 
corporeal eating with the mouth, but of spiritual 
eating by faith, as all the old authors do most 
clearly expound and declare.”* 

“When Christ said, ‘ The bread which I will give 
is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the 
world, if he had fulfilled this promise at his supper, 
as you say he did, then what needed he after to 
die that we might live, if he fulfilled his promise 
of life at the supper.” + 

“Yaithful Christian people, such as be Christ’s 

* Ibid, p. 65-67. + Page 81 


148 VIEW OF THE EARLY FATHERS, 


true disciples, continually from time to time re- 
cord in their minds the beneficial death of our 
Saviour Christ, chawing it by faith in the cud of 
their spirit, and digesting it in their hearts, feeding 
and comforting themselves with that heavenly 
meat, although they daily receive not the sacra- 
ment thereof, and so they eat Christ’s body spirit- 
ually, although not the sacrament thereof. But 
when such men, for their more comfort and con- 
firmation of eternal life, given unto them by 
Christ’s death, come unto the Lord’s holy Table, 
then, as before they fed spiritually upon Christ, so 
now they feed corporally also upon the sacra- 
mental bread. By which sacramental feeding in 
Christ’s promises their former spiritual feeding is 
increased, and they grow and wax continually 
more strong in Christ, until at the last they shall 
come to the full measure and perfection in Christ. 
—We say, that as they eat and drink Christ in the 
sacrament, so do they eat, drink, and feed upon 
him continually, so long as they be members of 
his body.”* 

“This I say, that the fathers and prophets did 
eat Christ’s body and drink his blood in promise 
of redemption to be wrought. Although, before 
the crucifying of his flesh and effusion of his blood, 
our redemption was not actually wrought by 
Christ, yet was he spiritually and sacramentally 
present, and spiritually and sacramentally eaten 
and drunken, not only of the Apostles at his last 


* Ibid., book iii., p. 130, 131. 


AND OF SOME MODERN DIVINES. 149 


Supper, before he suffered his passion, but also of 
the holy patriarchs and fathers, before his incar- 
nation, as well as he now is of us after his ascen- 
sion.” * 

“As concerning these words of Christ, the 
words which I do speak be spirit and life, I have 
not wrested them with mine own gloss, as you 
misreport, but I have cited for me the interpreta- 
tion of the Catholic doctors and holy fathers of 
the Church.” 

May the author and reader of this treatise prac- 
tically understand what the father of the English 
Reformation meant by spiritually eating and 
drinking the body and blood of Christ, and may 
each know, by his own blessed experience, what 
it is to dwell in Christ and to have Christ dwell- 
ing in him! Amen! 


* Tbid., p. 139. t Page 187. 





es 


ae 



















eit saune | See 
Loy ht Apt bonad 
ten tna bd desis isla is bis | 
chee dieses ere el mnie 
lool saat met Ane, oy i 


’ owes Hones | a a Ta RE ae fy es 
idaotag gh RPA RA, } he gtligs? PRG bass ; She 4... 
ark deatios abit alive Sh Weare ci? giro rteertey Dae tastenlics Ge at ies 
BST Sag “othe eMeos baw te fh Seusttisp oh ‘bod dyhew 


“J 


Head wa Motive ox nMCaEt oi tirtpatetr tes. MS odentit wr tae; | a 
CEN RG Peto MN, Bey Tee aot, pt eR We tee agian <2 

Serenity 99 4 We sor) Sates bila he Snel el a: Se 1s 

» Peary eT oighestrat ends eee, ars St Seog Ueclitss Sy 

eer ep he YO aay Trl eorees Vea heh + wth? teh aa 

iar TRAE Wheat Sapte WS Hck Van ott? ‘isi Beth RP 
yds <a wei dhine, Soaps Resid is. Joen sult apg Arians 

edly lenqony. fone bpd oceans ear) vi heh dean. 

_ walle hn vA" rien ENS Mie eS ae 

| ak ee 

y eco 22% ae aids» sang iy he Oi. bbe 


Bi reba % jap tog os) oad 












2 


APPENDIX. 


In the third part of the preceding essay, the reader will find 
a pretty full view of the commentary of the fathers of the first 
four centuries on those verses of our Lord’s Discourse, which are 
thought by some writers to have been intended principally of 
the eucharist. These venerable authors have so often been re- 
ferred to as containing the direct sacramental interpretation of 
the discourse, that I must be allowed to request the reader's 
very particular attention to that part of the essay. And, in or- 
der to develop still further the exposition of certain of the most 
distinguished personages of by-gone ages, I have thought it 
might be useful to imbody some of their teachings in an Ap- 
pendix. 

That the sacramental interpretation of the discourse in John 
sixth should become prominent was, of course, to be expected, 
just in proportion as the religious condition of the Church tend- 
ed to the external and ceremonial, in contradistinction to the in- 
ward and the spiritual. And such was really the fact. Yet 
even in those periods of comparative ignorance, which we have 
probably been too apt to turn away from with disgust as the 
Dark Ages, unworthy of notice, in which nothing is expected 
to be found that will repay the trouble of search, glimpses of 
the pure ray may be seen, proving that the “holy light” was 
far from being quenched, and that the same blessed Spirit who 
beamed upon the soul of the beloved disciple still ‘‘shone in- 
ward,” and taught “the hearts of his faithful people.” Let 
any one read the commentary of the venerable Benz, of the 
eighth century, on our Lord’s Discourse at Caperiin, and 
while he will recognize the sacramental interpretation, he can 
not fail to perceive, also, that the leading current of the author’s 


152 APPENDIX. 


thought flows strongly toward the spiritual. ‘‘ Moses gave you 
not the bread from heaven, but my Father gave you the bread from 
heaven: That manna, therefore, was significant of the imper- 
ishable meat, and all those were signs of me. My signs ye 
loved; what was signified thereby ye despise. And the bread 
which I will give is my flesh: Whosoever will live, let him be- 
lieve in Christ; let him eat spiritually the spiritual food, and 
become incorporated with the body of Christ; and let him not 
be a corrupt member, meriting excision, but let him be fair and 
sound, fit for his Head.”” Afterward he proceeds in the words 
of St. Augustin, as quoted in the Essay, p. 128, 129.* In an- 
other place he explains the verse last referred to, both of the 
eucharist and of the atonement made on the cross: “ This bread 
the Lord then gave when he delivered the mystery of his body 
and blood to the disciples, and when he offered himself to God 
the Father on the altar of the cross.’’t 

The sacramental view is prominent in the exposition of the 
Bulgarian metropolitan of the eleventh century, THEOoPHYLACT, 
although he does not entirely lose sight of the spiritual and deep- 
ersense. ‘“ The bread which Iwill give, &c.: Here he evident- 
ly speaks of the mystical reception of his body. But, indicating 
his right—for not as a slave (servant), and inferior to his Father, 
was he crucified, but willingly—he says, ‘I will give my flesh 
for the life of the world.’ For although it is said that he was 
given by the Father, yet also that he gave himself. But con 
sider that the bread which is eaten by us in the mysteries is not 


* Non Moyses dedit vobis panem de calo, sed pater meus dedit vobis panem 
de celo. Operamini cibum qui non perit, &c. Ergo et illud manna hoc sig- 
nificabat, et illa omnia signa mea erant. Signa mea dilexistis; quod sig- 
nificabatur, contemnitis.—Et panis quem ego dabo caro mea est pro mundi 
vita: Quisquis vivere vult, credat in Christum, manducet spiritualiter spir- 
itualem cibum. Incorporetur corpori Christi, et non sit putridum mem- 
brum, quod resecari mereatur, sit pulchrum, sit sanum, sit aptum capiti 
su0.— Venerabilis BED Presbyteri in Sanctum Evangelium B. Joannis Ex- 
positio, cap. vi. Opera; Colon., 1688, tom. v., col. 509, 510. 

Hunc panem tunc Dominus dedit, quando mysterium corporis et san- 
guinis sui discipulis tradidit, et quando semetipsum Deo Patri obtulit in ara 
crucis—D. THomm AgurnaTis Doct. Angel. Ord. Pred. Opera; Venet., 
1775, 4to, tom. iv., p. 429: Super Joannis Evang. Catena, cap. vi. 


APPENDIX. 153 


a type of the Lord’s flesh, but the flesh itself; for he did not say, 
the bread which I will give is a type of my flesh—but is my 
flesh. For, through the mystical blessing and the addition of 
the Holy Spirit, it is transformed by inexplicable (literally, in- 
effable) words to the flesh of the Lord. And now, therefore, 
the bread is changed into the Lord’s flesh.” But still he does 
not forget the necessity of an inward character correspondent 
with the holiness of the sacramental elements. ‘‘ When, there- 
fore, we hear the words, ‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the Son, ye 
have no life,’ it becomes us, in receiving the divine mysteries, 
to have unwavering faith, and not to inquire into the manner: 
for the animal man, that is, he who is led by human and carnal 
or natural reasonings, doth not receive what is supernatural and 
spiritual, and therefore has no conception of what the spiritual 
food of the Lord’s flesh means.” * 

Let us look now at the language of the celebrated Abbot of 
Clairvaulx in the twelfth century. St. Bernarp speaks of “a 
three-fold reception of the body and blood of the Lord. The 
first is both sacramental and spiritual, of which the Lord says, 
He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and 
Tin him. And again: He that eateth me shail live on account 
of me. The second, which is only spiritual, as the Lord him- 
self says again, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that 


* Savepas Sé évtadOa wept THs MVTTLKAS METAAnWEwS TOV THmaTOS avTOD, 
cm La a ? ‘ , c 4 > “ « > a A c 7 
g¢noww: 6 dptos yap, dyou, dv eyo Sdcw, 7 caps pou EoTiv, Hy eyo dHaw iTEp 
Tis TOU Kogpov wis Thy efovaiav Sé avTov Setxviwy, Ott OVX ws SodAos, Kai 
» , a . > ~ N > at % e S28 , s 
EAAGTTOV TOD TaTpds aV’TOD EoTavpwOn, AAA’ ExV, dyoLY, OTL Ey SHow THY 
capka ov Umép THs TOD Kdcpou Cwijs el yap Kai SeddaGar A€yerar WTO TOD 
x > . x c ‘ A , a bid erm = Lal 
matpos, GAA Kal éeavToy Sedwxéevat.—Llpdcxes Sé, TL O apTos Oo Ev Tots wuG- 
4 c > ¢ ~ ,. s > > iA ia > ~ ~ ‘a mS > > 
mplots Ud" Hav écOcdpevos, ovK avTituTOy Eat THS TOV Kupiov capkos, ad’ 
, ars A , , > BS so e ec a te “ > ig a 
auTH } TOD Kupiov aodpé. Ov yap eimev, OTe O aptos Oy eyw Ewow avtituTdy 
éote TAS TapKos fov, GAN’ H odpé mov Earl. Merarotcirar yap amoppytois 
Adyots 6 apros odtos Sia THs pvaoTiKs eVAoyias, Kat EmepotTHgews TOU aytov 
mvevparos, eis capKa TOD Kupiov..... Aet Toivuy nas axovoavTas, O71 €av LH 
daywpuev Thy TépKka TOD viod, ovK Exomev CwHy, Ev Tals peTaAn Wear THY Beiwy 
uvoTypiov miatw éxew adioTaKToy, Kat my CnTely TO, TMS; 0 yap WuxXiKds 
&vOpwros, TouTécTi, & Aoyiopots avOpwrivors Kal WuxiKkois HToL Puatkois 
éxdpevos, od Séxerat Ta brep How Kal TrevpaTiKd. “Oarep ody Kai THY TVEU- 
patichy Bpoaow rhs ToD Kupiov capkos dv voet, x. T. A—Commentarius in 
Joannem, cap. vi. Opera; Venet., 1754, tom. i., p. 593-595. 


154 APPENDIX. 


guickeneth. As if he had said, If ye understand a carnal recep- 
tion only without grace, it is of no use, but rather injurious: 
but the spiriteal without the carnal quickeneth thee. Of the 
third, which is only sacramental, the apostle speaks when he 
says, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- 
eth judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body; that is 
to say, not distinguishing it from other food.””* 

The remarks of the celebrated Cardinal Hueco pr Sancto 
Caro are equally worthy of note. This very distinguished 
man belongs to the former half of the thirteenth century. He 
died in 1260.¢ I quote from his Postilla on St. John’s Gospel, 
printed at Basle, in connection with his other works, in five 
folio volumes.—Verse 50. “ That if any one eat of wt: by be- 
lieving and loving; or by receiving worthily his flesh and blood.” 
51. “If any one eat of this bread: either, if any one worthily 
receive the eucharist; or, (if) any one by faith and love unite 
Christ to himself, and convert his words and example into his 
own nourishment. He shall live forever: provided he perse- 
vere therein.” 53. “‘ Except ye eat: by faith, as says Augustin: 
Believe, and thou hast eaten.” See p. 126 of the Essay. Aft- 
erward he proceeds to note “‘ three things in the sacrament of 
the eucharist: the species of bread, the true body of Christ, and 
Christ’s mystical body. The first is only the sign; the second, 
the sign and the thing signified; the third is only the thing sig- 
nified. The first is taken only sacramentally; the second sac- 
ramentally and spiritually ; the third only spiritually. The first 


* De prima sumptione, que est sacramentalis et spiritualis, Dominus 
dicit: Qui manducat meam carnem et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et 
ego in eo: et rursum, Qui manducat me, vivet propter me. (It is worthy of 
remark that the abbot has given the exact meaning of the original 6.4 with 
an accusative, propter.) De secunda, que est tantum spiritualis, iterum 
ipse Dominus loquitur: Caro nihil prodest, spiritus est qut vivificat; ac si 
diceret: si intelligis tantum carnalem sumptionem absque gratia, nihil pro- 
dest, immo nocet; spiritualis vero absque carnali te vivificat. De tertia 
que est tantum sacramentalis, dicit Apostolus: Qui manducat et bibit in- 
digne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit, non dijudicans corpus Domini: quod 

est dicere, non discernens corpus Domini ab aliis cibis.—Instructio Sacer- 
dotis de tribus precipuis mysteriis, cap. xii. Opera; Paris, 1719, vol. ii., 
eol. 548. t Cave, Hist. Lit., vol. ii, p. 300; Oxon., 1743. 


APPENDIX. 155 


aud second may be taken by both good and bad in common; 
the bad man to his death, the good to his life. But only the 
good man can receive the last; for, to eat the mystical body of 
Christ is nothing else than, by faith, hope, and love, to become 
incorporated in the unity of the Church.” To the same pur- 
pose, afterward, “ Except ye eat: spiritually or by faith; or, 
taking the antecedent for the consequent, except you are united 
by love to the Son of God, who is the Son of man.”* His com- 
meut contains much more to the same purpose, proving con- 
clusively that, although he does not lose sight of the eucharist, 
he never fails to represent the eating and drinking as a spiritual 
reception of Christ through virtue of an inward union with him 
by faith; and this as the main point of instruction in this por- 
tion of the Discourse. 

After the reader has carefully considered the views of the 
fathers both of the early and Middle Ages, as they have now 
been presented to him, he will be the less surprised at the ac- 
tion taken on John sixth by the celebrated Council of Trent. 
The learned divines of this synod well knew that they could not 
maintain the sacramental interpretation on the ground of the 
consent of the fathers. In the course of the discussions which 
arose on the subject of giving the cup to the laity, this chapter 
was appealed to in order to show that our Lord speaks indiffer- 
ently of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and also simply 


* Ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit : credendo et amando; vel digne car- 
nem ejus et sanguinem sumendo,—Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane: seu, 
si quis eucharistiam digne sumpserit, vel quis Christum fide et amore sibi 
junxerit, et verba ejus et exempla in nutrimentum suum converterit. Vi- 
vet in eternum: Si in hoc perseveraverit.—Nisi manducaveritis: per fidem, 
secundum illud Augustini, Crede et manducasti.—Nota tria esse in sacra- 
mento eucharistie ; speciem panis, corpus Christi verum, corpus Christi 
mysticum, Primum est signum tantum; secundum signum et res; ter- 
tium res tantum. Primum sumitur tantum sacramentaliter; secundum 
sacramentaliter et spirituallier; tertium tantum spiritualiter. Primum et 
secundum potest sumere communiter bonus et malus; sed malus ad mor- 
tem, bonus ad vitam. Tertium non potest sumere nisi bonus. Nam cor- 
pus Christi mysticum manducare nihil aliud est quam fide, epe et charitate 
unitati ecclesiastice incorporari—Nisi manducaveritis: spiritualiter, seu 
per fidem. Vel ut sumatur antecedens pro consequenti, nisi uniti fueritis 
per charitatem filio Dei, qui est filius hominis. 


156 APPENDIX. 


of eating his flesh ; and hence it was inferred that the latter vir- 
tually comprehends the former. But, in opposition to this, it 
was urged that “many fathers understood those places in St. 
John not of sacramental, but of a spiritual eating of Christ’s flesh 
and drinking of his blood; and therefore that the council should 
not indirectly sanction the opposite interpretation.”’* Cardinal 
Seripando, who presided on that occasion, remarked that there 
were two controversies connected with the discourse in that 
chapter of St. Johu; one with the heretics, on this point, wheth- 
er the communion in both kinds was therein divinely command- 
ed and made necessary for the salvation of all the faithful; and 
the other among the Catholics themselves, whether the dis- 
course related to sacramental or spiritual communion: that, 
even allowing St. John to speak of the former, the inference 
that the cup was absolutely necessary to salvation was errone- 
ous; and that the propesed decree decided nothing in reference 
to the second of the twocontroversies. The “modest” cardinal, 
as Pallavicini calls him, should have stated the point somewhat 
differently ; for the controversy was not whether the cup is ab- 
solutely necessary to salvation, but whether the command to 
drink it is not as plain and obligatory as that to eat the flesh, 
and therefore the drinking of the one as certainly necessary to 
salvation as the eating of the other. After much consideration 
and discussion, it was agreed that, in reference to our Lord’s 
Discourse, the decree should be amended by adding the words, 
‘“‘ However, among the various interpretations of the holy fathers 
and doctors, it may have been understood.”t This passed by 
a majority of twenty-six, eighty-three voting in favor of the 
amendment, and fifty-seven against it. The minority did not 
maintain that the chapter related directly to the eucharist. 
They took the ground “that it was not in character with the 


* Che in quel testo de S. Giovanni intendevasi da molii Padri non il 
mangiamento e il bevimento sacramentale, m4 lo spirituale della carne e 
del sangue di Christo; st che non conveniva al Concilio statuir obliqua- 
mente la contraria interpretazione.—Istoria del Concilio di Trento, scritta 
dal Padre Srorza PaLLavicino ; Rom., 1657, cap. xi., lib. xvii., p. 408. 

+ Comungue fra le varie interpretazioni de’ Santi Padri e de’ Dottori s’ in- 
tenda.—P. 409 


APPENDIX. 157 


dignity of the council to say any thing about the uncertainty of 
the meaning of so celebrated a portion of Scripture, and by ex- 
press terms to leave it doubtful; and that it would be more dec- 
orous to adhere to the original form of the decree, and not to 
mention the second controversy at all.’’* 

That such were the views and action of the Council of Trent 
is candidly admitted by Dr. Wiseman.t Mr. Johnson, too, has 
certainly the best reason for saying, ‘‘ It is evident that the Coun- 
cil of Trent did not believe the discourse in the sixth chapter of 
St. John to speak strictly of sacramental eating and drinking.”’f 
But he is undoubtedly mistaken in giving what follows as an 
“especial” cause why they did not limit the meaning of the dis- 
course to the sacramental exposition: ‘‘ Because it was appre- 
hended that if John sixth were taken as meant of the eucharist, 
it must follow that it was absolutely necessary that the people 
must communicate in both kinds.” The language of Cardinal 
Seripando, already quoted, expressly disclaims such an appre- 
hension, inasmuch as it denies the inference to be well founded. 
It is indeed true, as the author remarks, that “ our Saviour de- 
clares it to be altogether as dangerous to omit the drinking of 
his blood as the eating of his flesh ;” and the correctness of the 
conclusion he draws as to the necessity of the cup would be un- 
deniable if the eucharist were the direct subject of the chapter. 
But that the divines of this council would have allowed this con- 
clusion is quite another matter. The inference drawn from the 
indifferent use of the phrases eating the flesh and drinking the 
blood, and from the former alone, namely, that this comprehends 
the other, shows that they would’not; and it is plain that the 
presiding cardinal expressly denies it. The result is irresistible, 
that the leading theologians of the Church of Rome at that pe- 
riod knew well that they could not claim a consent of fathers 
for the sacramental interpretation of John sixth. 


* Allegavano questi, non esser dignita del Concilio, reeando un capo si 
celebre della Scrittura, toccar la dubieta del senso, e insieme lasciarla con 
aperte parole in sospeso: maggior decoro serbarsi nella prima forma, in 
cui non si menzionava la controversia.—P. 409. 

+ Lectures on the Real Presence; Lect. v., p. 163-165. 

t The Unbloody Sacrifice ; London, 1718, p. 154. 


O 


158 APPENDIX. 


A calm and candid attention to these particulars in the history 
of the interpretation of this chapter, and also in that of the Coun. 
cil of Trent, can not fail to be instructive. If men will but di 
vest themselves of prejudice, and take the necessary trouble in 
order to secure the truth, they must see that the exposition of 
John sixth which has most generally prevailed in all periods of 
the Church is that of spiritual feeding on Christ by faith, and 
that, to use the language of Hooker, either “in the sacrament” 
or “ otherwise;”* the former means having been always re- 
garded as the most important. Loose assertions, which have 
no better support than an assumed meaning of certain figurative 
words in this chapter, can therefore have no influence on those 
who are conscientiously bent on seeking, finding, and keepizg 
the truth of God’s most holy word. 


* Book v., sect. 55; Oxford, 1793, vol.ii., p. 219. Compare the languags 
in section 60, p. 248: “By sacraments and other sensible tokens of grace.” 













aN , ‘ 


2 fae Ga ny Le abe tere cities Se aie trate 
ta (ese V5 meee 0 (eileen. chs He oe #1 & Ayn > wil 
‘pie 4S~ at Gulls fora oh Re eel aw A 


— e6kee 64et Aaheieteer bees AS 5 or oe oo Gal 3 





.* ' Prem, ie Y. rr Se > ee = = ‘pe 14.0) (4 ear SRD 7 








_ ae STO he: we: iM YAP iw an a LP a 
: e 


Ghat on "gt - Pha 2+ 
SES) fer : 





ay 


a 


*» 
- 














ite 
| a 
—| 
m 
0 
Cc 
m 


RNG 


GAYLORD #3523P\l Printed in USA 








Oe pate erg Pn 





